Legal Opinion

Lindsey v. Suncrest Lumber Co.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided December 23, 1925PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtStacy, C. J.

We deem it unnecessary to consider more than one exception. The following excerpt, taken from the charge as it deals with the issue of negligence, constitutes one of the defendant’s exceptive assignments of error:

“In this connection the court charges you it is the duty of the defendant in a case of this kind to furnish reasonably safe place for its employees to work and to furnish reasonably safe tools and equipment with wbieb to work, and tbe failure to do that is negligence, and if you find tbis was so and it was tbe proximate cause of tbe plaintiff’s injury, it would be your duty to answer…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Murphy v. Suncrest Lumber Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1923
  2. Smith v. Seaboard Air Line Railway Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1921
  3. Owen v. Suncrest Lumber Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1923
  4. Lindsey v. Suncrest Lumber Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1925
  5. Cable v. Kitchen Lumber Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1925

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Murray v. . R. R.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1940
  2. Murray v. Atlantic Coast Line RailroadSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1940
  3. O'Brien v. . Parks Cramer Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1928
  4. Hall v. . RhinehartSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1926
  5. Darden v. Robert G. Lassiter & Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1930

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API