Miller v. Holland

2 Citing cases

  1. Threatt v. Express Agency

    19 S.E.2d 873 (N.C. 1942)   Cited 2 times

    The record suggests that the demurrer to the evidence should be sustained, if not upon the principal issue of liability, then upon the ground of contributory negligence. Swainey v. Tea Co., 202 N.C. 272, 162 S.E. 557; Miller v. Holland, 196 N.C. 739, 147 S.E. 8. Cf. Wooten v. Smith, 215 N.C. 48, 200 S.E. 921; Hood v. Bottling Co., 192 N.C. 827, 135 S.E. 609. Both the driver of the truck and the plaintiff were charged with the mutual and reciprocal duty to exercise reasonable care under the circumstances arising from the exigencies of traffic in the street.

  2. Harrison v. R. R

    169 S.E. 637 (N.C. 1933)   Cited 5 times

    After stating the case: Conceding the sufficiency of the evidence to permit the inference that plaintiff's intestate was killed by defendant's passing freight train ( Cox v. R. R., 123 N.C. 604, 31 S.E. 848), still the record is barren of any evidence of actionable negligence on the part of the defendant. Negligence is not presumed from the mere fact of an injury. Austin v. R. R., 197 N.C. 319, 148 S.E. 446; Miller v. Holland, 196 N.C. 739, 147 S.E. 8; Lamb v. Boyles, 192 N.C. 542, 135 S.E. 464; Isley v. Bridge Co., 141 N.C. 220, 53 S.E. 841. What was the condition of the deceased when he was struck? Was he in a position of peril when seen by the engineer? or in the apparent possession of his faculties? Tredwell v. R. R., 169 N.C. 694, 86 S.E. 617. What duty did the defendant owe to plaintiff's intestate which it failed to discharge?