From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Talton v. R. R

Supreme Court of North Carolina
Mar 1, 1926
131 S.E. 926 (N.C. 1926)

Opinion

(Filed 10 March, 1926.)

APPEAL by defendant from Devin, J., at November Term, 1925, of WAYNE.

Dickinson Freeman for plaintiff.

Langston, Allen Taylor for defendant.


Civil action to recover damages for an alleged negligent injury, tried upon the following issues:

"1. Was the plaintiff injured by the negligence of the defendant, as alleged in the complaint? Answer: Yes.

"2. Did the plaintiff, by his own negligence, contribute to his injury, as alleged in the answer? Answer: No.

"3. What damages, if any, is the plaintiff entitled to recover from the defendant? Answer: $1,000."

From a judgment on the verdict in favor of plaintiff, the defendant appeals, assigning errors.


The defendant's chief assignment of error, or the one most strongly urged on the argument and in its brief, is based on the exception addressed to the refusal of the court to grant the motion for judgment as of nonsuit, made on the ground that the plaintiff's own evidence clearly establishes a case of contributory negligence sufficient to bar his right of recovery. Wright v. R. R., 155 N.C. 329; Horne v. R. R., 170 N.C. 660; Coleman v. R. R., 153 N.C. 322; Holton v. R. R., 188 N.C. 277.

We are convinced from a careful perusal of the record that the evidence was properly submitted to the jury. No benefit would be derived from detailing plaintiff's testimony, as the only question presented by this exception is whether or not it is sufficient to carry the case of the jury, and we think it is. Farris v. R. R., 151 N.C. 483.

No error.


Summaries of

Talton v. R. R

Supreme Court of North Carolina
Mar 1, 1926
131 S.E. 926 (N.C. 1926)
Case details for

Talton v. R. R

Case Details

Full title:L. W. TALTON v. SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY

Court:Supreme Court of North Carolina

Date published: Mar 1, 1926

Citations

131 S.E. 926 (N.C. 1926)
131 S.E. 926