DIX v. R. R

1 Citing case

  1. Way v. R. R

    178 S.E. 571 (N.C. 1935)   Cited 1 times

    The same principle was tersely expressed in Neal v. R. R., 126 N.C. 634, 36 S.E. 117, as follows: "These cases hold that it is not negligence in a railroad company where its train runs over a man walking on the railroad track, apparently in possession of his faculties, and in the absence of any reason to suppose that he was not. This is put upon the ground that the engineer may reasonably suppose that the man will step off in time to prevent injury." See, also, Davis v. R. R., 187 N.C. 147, 120 S.E. 827; Thompson v. R. R., 199 N.C. 409, 154 S.E. 630; Dix v. R. R., 199 N.C. 651, 155 S.E. 448. Affirmed.