Odom v. R. R

7 Citing cases

  1. Mills v. Waters

    70 S.E.2d 11 (N.C. 1952)   Cited 8 times
    In Mills v. Waters, 198 Mich. 637, plaintiff motorist looked, listened, and slackened his speed, but did not stop, at the railroad crossing on a dark night.

    "One who is required to act in an emergency is not held by the law to the wisest choice of conduct, but only to such choice as a person of ordinary care and prudence, similarly situated, would have made." Ingle v. Cassady, 208 N.C. 497, 181 S.E. 562. Citing Poplin v. Adickes, 203 N.C. 726, 166 S.E. 908; Pridgen v. Produce Co., 199 N.C. 560, 155 S.E. 247; Odom v. R. R., 193 N.C. 442, 137 S.E. 313; Parker v. R. R., 181 N.C. 95, 106 S.E. 755; Norris v. R. R., 152 N.C. 505, 67 S.E. 1017. The standard of conduct required is that of an ordinarily prudent man. Jernigan v. Jernigan, 207 N.C. 831, 178 S.E. 587; Small v. Utilities Co. 200 N.C. 719, 158 S.E. 385. "`If the peril seemed imminent, more hasty and violent action was to be expected than would be natural at quieter moments, and such conduct is to be judged with reference to the stress of appearances at the time, and not by the cool estimate of the actual danger formed by outsiders after the event' — Holmes, J., in Gannon v. R. R., 173 Mass. 40." Ingle v. Cassady, supra.

  2. Ingle v. Cassady

    208 N.C. 497 (N.C. 1935)   Cited 41 times

    Some allowance must be made for the excitement of the moment and the strain of nerves. One who is required to act in an emergency is not held by the law to the wisest choice of conduct, but only to such choice as a person of ordinary care and prudence, similarly situated, would have made. Poplin v. Adickes, 203 N.C. 726, 166 S.E. 908; Pridgen v. Produce Co., 199 N.C. 560, 155 S.E. 247; Odom v. R. R., 193 N.C. 442, 137 S.E. 313; Parker v. R. R., 181 N.C. 95, 106 S.E. 755; Norris v. R. R., 152 N.C. 505, 67 S.E. 1017. In Hinton v. R. R., 172 N.C. 587, 90 S.E. 756, it is said: "It is well understood that a person in the presence of an emergency is not usually held to the same deliberation or circumspect care as in ordinary conditions."

  3. Nash v. R. R

    161 S.E. 857 (N.C. 1932)   Cited 4 times
    In Nash v. R. R., 202 N.C. 30 (33), we find: "Louise Nash was a gratuitous passenger or guest in the automobile driven by Sarah Adams. She was not the owner of the car and had no control of it; neither is there evidence that the deceased was engaged in a joint enterprise with the driver or other occupant of the car.

    This act, however, does not bar recovery. Discussing a similar situation in Odom v. R. R., 193, N.C. 442, 137 S.E. 313, the Court said: "The mere fact that a person jumps from a vehicle in which he is travelling, where there is imminent danger of its coming in collision with an approaching train at a crossing, does not bar recovery against the railroad corporation, although it appears that he made a mistake and would have escaped injury had he remained quite." Hence the determining question of law is whether there is evidence of negligence on the part of the defendant.

  4. Moseley v. R. R

    150 S.E. 184 (N.C. 1929)   Cited 38 times
    In Moseley v. R. R., 197 N.C. 628 (635-6), it is said: "A serious and troublesome question is continually arising as to how far a court will declare certain conduct of a defendant negligent and certain conduct of a plaintiff contributory negligence and take away the question of negligence and contributory negligence from the jury.

    We do not think this can be sustained. Parker v. R. R., 181 N.C. at p. 103; Odom v. R. R., 193 N.C. 442. The other assignments of error as to admissibility of testimony and other exceptions to the charge, we do not think, if error, are reversible or prejudicial.

  5. Stevens v. Rostan

    145 S.E. 555 (N.C. 1928)   Cited 7 times

    Dreher v. Devine, 192 N.C. 325, is not controlling under the facts in the present case. As to proximate cause, see DeLaney v. Henderson, 192 N.C. at p. 651; Radford v. Young, 194 N.C. 747. As to sudden danger or emergency, see Riggs v. Mfg. Co., 190 N.C. at p. 260; Fowler v. Underwood, 193 N.C. 402; Odom v. R. R., 193 N.C. 442. Plaintiff's cause of action arose prior to Motor Vehicle Uniform Act, Public Laws of N.C. 1927, ch. 148, where the "Rules of the Road" are set forth.

  6. Pope v. R.R

    141 S.E. 350 (N.C. 1928)   Cited 14 times

    In cases of sudden peril, imminent danger and emergency not brought about by the negligence of the traveler. McLellan v. R. R., 155 N.C. 1; Hinton v. R. R., 172 N.C. 587; Odom v. R. R., 193 N.C. 442. 4. The existence of unusual and extraordinary conditions created by the railroad company, which tend to distract and divert the attention of a man of ordinary prudence and self-possession from the duty of looking and listening effectively for an approaching train.

  7. White v. Realty Co.

    109 S.E. 564 (N.C. 1921)   Cited 42 times
    In White v. Realty Co., 182 N.C. 536, at p. 538, is the well settled law in this State: "But if any degree, however small, of the causal negligence, or that without which the injury would not have occurred, be attributable to the defendant, then the plaintiff, in the absence of any contributory negligence on his part, would be entitled to recover; because the defendant cannot be excused from liability unless the total causal negligence, or proximate cause, be attributable to another or others.

    No error. Cited: Tyree v. Tudor, 183 N.C. 349; Graham v. Charlotte, 186 N.C. 665; Williams v. R. R., 187 N.C. 355; Hanes v. Utilities, 188 N.C. 468; Mangum v. R. R., 188 N.C. 696; Williams v. R. R., 190 N.C. 368; Albritton v. Hill, 190 N.C. 431; Hanes v. Utilities, 191 N.C. 19; Earwood v. R. R., 192 N.C. 30; Clinard v. Electric Co., 192 N.C. 743; Gillis v. Transit Corp., 193 N.C. 349; Odom v. R. R., 193 N.C. 443; Evans v. Construction Co, 194 N.C. 33; Ballinger v. Thomas, 195 N.C. 520; Ralsey v. Power Co., 195 N.C. 793; Dickey v. R. R., 196 N.C. 728; Jordan v. Hatch, 198 N.C. 540; Moss v. Brown, 199 N.C. 192; Campbell v. R. R., 201 N.C. 107; Godfrey v. Coach Co., 201 N.C. 266; Sanders v. R. R., 201 N.C. 676; Eller v. Dent, 203 N.C. 439; Keller v. R. R., 205 N.C. 278; Bullard v. Ross, 205 N.C. 496; Gaffney v. Phelps, 207 N.C. 558; Brown v. R. R., 208 N.C. 59; Myers v. Utilities Co., 208 N.C. 295; West v. Baking Co., 208 N.C. 529; Smith v. Sink, 210 N.C. 817; Harper v. R. R., 211 N.C. 402; Lewis v. Hunter, 212 N.C. 508; York v. York, 212 N.C. 703; Cunningham v. Haynes, 214 N.C. 458; Mason v. Johnston, 215 N.C. 97; Daniel v. Packing Co., 215 N.C. 765; Bechtler v. Bracken, 217 N.C. 522; Rattley v. Powell, 223 N.C. 136; Barber v. Wooten, 234 N.C. 109; Tillman v. Bellamy, 242 N.C. 204; Faircloth v. Bennett, 258 N.C. 518; Pearsall v. Power Co., 258 N.C. 642.