Peeler v. Cruse
Court of Appeals of North Carolina
1Opinion of the Court
GRAHAM, Judge.
While defendants do not concede their negligence and plaintiff does not concede his contributory negligence, the only question plaintiff argues in this Court is whether the trial judge erred in finding that the issue of last clear chance does not arise on the undisputed facts in this case.
The doctrine of last clear chance presupposes negligence and contributory negligence. Arvin v. McClintock, 253 N.C. 679, 118 S.E. 2d 129. It is applicable when both plaintiff and defendant have been negligent and the defendant has time, after the respective negligences have created the hazards,…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Burgess Ex Rel. Burgess v. MattoxSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1963
- Presnell v. PayneSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1967
- Arvin v. McClintockSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1961
- Tallent Ex Rel. Tallent v. TalbertSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1958
- Huffman v. HuffmanSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1967
3Cited by6 opinions
- Tanner v. State Department of CorrectionCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1973
- Stephens v. MannCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1980
- Handley v. HalladayNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1978
- Crouse v. WoodruffCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1980
- Tanner v. State Department of CorrectionCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1973
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.