Legal Opinion

Starling v. Selma Cotton Mills

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided March 22, 1916PublishedCited by 8 opinions

Appeal by plaintiff from Bond, J., at April Term, 1915, of JohNstoN.

1Opinion of the Court

OlaRK, O. J.

This is an action against the defendant to recover damages for the negligent drowning of the infant intestate of the plaintiff in a reservoir on the premises of the defendant. This case was before the Court, 168 N. C., 229. There are numerous exceptions, but it is not necessary to discuss all of them.

There was evidence that the children of the operatives, among whom was this child, were in the habit of using the ground around the reservoir, which was in a few feet of the mill, as a playground; and that the plaintiff’s intestate, a child 5 years old, was drowned in the reservoir,…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Starling v. Selma Cotton MillsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1915
  2. Executors of Reel v. ReelSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1822

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. State v. . RhinehartSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1936
  2. Hyder v. ASHEVILLE STORAGE BATTERY COMPANYSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1955
  3. Fitch v. Selwyn Village, Inc.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1951
  4. Comer v. City of Winston-SalemSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1919
  5. Hedgepath v. City of DurhamSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1944

3 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