Legal Opinion

Earwood v. Southern Railway Co.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided May 27, 1926PublishedCited by 31 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtEeogdeN, J.

The crossing in controversy was a grade crossing, and, according to the evidence, one that was much used by the public. It was therefore the duty of the defendant to use due care in giving a timely warning of the approach of its train either by sounding the whistle or ringing the bell at the usual and proper place in order that those approaching or using the crossing could be apprised that the train was at hand. It is established law that failure to perform this duty constitutes negligence. Edwards v. R. R., 132 N. C., 100; Bagwell v. R. R., 167 N. C., 611; Goff v. R. R., 179 N. C., 216;…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. White v. Carolina Realty Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1921
  2. Edwards v. Atlantic Coast Line RailroadSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1903
  3. Albritton v. . HillSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1925
  4. Wood v. North Carolina Public-Service Corp.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1917
  5. Bagwell v. . R. R.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1914

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

3Cited by31 opinions

  1. Hinnant v. Atlantic Coast Line RailroadSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1932
  2. Conley Ex Rel. Conley v. Pearce-Young-Angel Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1944
  3. Redmon v. . R. R.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1928
  4. Moseley v. Atlantic Coast Line RailroadSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1929
  5. Johnson Sons, Inc. v. . R. R.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1938

26 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