Legal Opinion

Messick v. Turnage

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided September 22, 1954No. 20PublishedCited by 14 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHiggins, J.

The negligence sufficiently pleaded in the complaint is to the effect that the defendant “knew or should have known . . . that said roof was leaking and in bad repair . . .” There is not a suggestion in the evidence that the roof was leaking and in bad repair. It was incumbent upon the plaintiff not only to prove negligence proximately causing her injury, but it was her duty to prove negligence substantially as alleged in her complaint. This she failed to do. Proof without. allegation is as unavailing as allegation without proof. Smith v. Barnes, 236 N.C. 176, 72 S.E. 2d 216; Bowen v. Darden,…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Bowen v. DardenSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1951
  2. Smith v. BarnesSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1952

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. Andrews v. BrutonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1955
  2. Jackson Ex Rel. Jackson v. McBrideSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1967
  3. Douglas v. W. C. Mallison & SonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1965
  4. Warren v. LewisSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1968
  5. Moody v. KerseySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1967

9 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