State v. Smith
Supreme Court of North Carolina
1Opinion of the CourtJohnson, J.
The defendant, pointing to the fact that the collision occurred on his right side of the street, contends that the court erred in refusing to allow his motion for judgment as of nonsuit. Here the defendant emphasizes the provisions of G.S. 20-38 (if), under which a bicycle is deemed a vehicle and a rider of a bicycle is made subject to the applicable provisions of the statutes relating to motor vehicles. (Tarrant v. Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co., 221 N.C. 390, 20 S.E. 2d 565.)
The defendant’s contention is untenable. It is well established that “contributory negligence as such has no place in the…
2Cases cited24 opinions
- State v. . CopeSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1933
- State v. . RountreeSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1921
- State v. . TrottSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1925
- State v. . StansellSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1932
- Tarrant Ex Rel. Tarrant v. Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1942
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- State v. BrooksSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1963
- People v. ScottMichigan Court of Appeals · 1971
- State v. AdamsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1957
- State v. HancockSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1958
- State v. PowellCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1969
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.