Legal Opinion

Bullock v. Norfolk & Western Railway Co.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided January 5, 1938PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtCoNNOR, J.

It is conceded that there was evidence at the trial of this action which was sufficient to show that the plaintiff was injured by the negligence of the defendant as alleged in the complaint. Johnson v. R. R., 205 N. C., 127, 170 S. E., 120.

At the time the plaintiff entered upon the crossing the gates which the defendant maintained at the crossing as required by an ordinance of the city of Durham were raised. For this reason the plaintiff was justified in assuming that he could cross defendant’s tracks in safety. Oldham v. R. R., 210 N. C., 642, 188 S. E., 106. The evidence for the plaintiff…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Rimmer v. Southern Railway Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1935
  2. Johnson v. Atlantic Coast Line RailroadSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1933
  3. Oldham v. Seaboard Air Line Railway Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1936

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Meacham v. Southern Railway Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1938
  2. Bennett Ex Rel. Bennett v. Southern Railway Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1951
  3. Cline v. Southern Ry. Co.Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1940
  4. Coley v. . R. R.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1938
  5. Cline v. Southern Ry. Co.District Court, M.D. North Carolina · 1940

1 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