Legal Opinion

Medford v. Rex Spinning Co.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided June 21, 1924PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtAdams, J.

The defendant excepted to the following instruction in regard to the plaintiff’s assumption of risk: “I again instruct you that upon the third issue the burden of proof is cast upon the defendant, and if you reach its consideration, if the defendant has satisfied you by the greater weight of the evidence that the injury to the plaintiff was the direct and proximate result of a risk assumed by him, then you would answer this issue ‘Yes’; if you are not so satisfied you would answer it No.’ ” In the same connection his Honor had previously said: “As applied to an investigation of this nature,…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Hicks v. . Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1905
  2. Pigford v. . R. R.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1912
  3. Pressly v. Yarn Mills.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1905
  4. Deligny v. Tate Furniture Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1915
  5. Howard v. . WrightSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1917

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Maulden v. High Point Chair Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1928
  2. McCord v. . Harrison-Wright Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1930
  3. Street v. Erskine-Ramsey Coal Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1928
  4. Street v. . Coal Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1928

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

Powered by the Exa API