Urquhart v. Durham & South Carolina Railroad
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Appeal from Daniels, J., at March Term, 1911, of Dubham. The facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion of the Court by Mr. Chief Justice Ciarle.
1Opinion of the CourtClabk, C. J.
This is an action to recover damages for personal injury caused by the negligence of the defendant. The defendant took ninety-four exceptions, but abandoned fifty-one of them in this Court.
*583While tbe record is voluminous and tbe exceptions numerous, tbe matter for decision lies in a very small compass. Tbe case comes witbin tbe principles of law laid down in Coley v. R. R., 128 N. C., 534; s. c., 129 N. C., 407. Tbe plaintiff was employed by tbe defendant 1 December, 1907, as a brakeman on its road. Twenty-four days later be lost bis foot by reason, as be alleges, of negligence on tbe part of…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Coley v. North Carolina RailroadSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1901
- Coley v. North Carolina RailroadSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1901
- Biles v. RailroadSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1905
3Cited by8 opinions
- Mrs. Georgia Ann Segars, as Temporary Administratrix of the Estate of Oscar A. Segars, Deceased v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1961
- Beach v. CommonwealthCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1952
- State v. SpanglerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1985
- State v. LumbraSupreme Court of Vermont · 1962
- Williams v. BridgefordCourt of Appeals of Tennessee · 1964
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.