Legal Opinion

Hedgepath v. City of Durham

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided January 12, 1944PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Schenck:, J.

In 38 Am. Jur., Negligence (subhead Attractive Nuisances), par. 142, it is written: “While'the doctrine has been variously stated, the courts which accept it generally are in substantial accord with the proposition that one who maintains upon his premises a condition, instrumentality, machine, or other agency which is dangerous to children of tender years by reason of their inability to appreciate the peril therein, and which may reasonably be expected to attract children of tender years to the premises, is under a duty to exercise reasonable care to protect them against the…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Railroad Co. v. StoutSupreme Court of the United States · 1874
  2. Exchange Bank v. LohSupreme Court of Georgia · 1898
  3. Barnett v. MillsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1914
  4. Ferrell v. Dixie Cotton MillsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1911
  5. Kramer v. . R. R.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1900

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

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Fitch v. Selwyn Village, Inc.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1951
  2. Ford Ex Rel. Ford v. Blythe Bros.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1955
  3. Barnett v. . MillsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1914
  4. Barlow v. . GurneySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1944
  5. Boyette Ex Rel. Boyette v. Atlantic Coast Line RailroadSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1947

5 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