From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Krouse v. R. R

Supreme Court of North Carolina
Oct 1, 1929
149 S.E. 853 (N.C. 1929)

Opinion

(Filed 9 October, 1929.)

Negligence D c — Where evidence shows contributory negligence barring recovery nonsuit is proper.

Where the evidence offered by the plaintiff shows contributory negligence barring his right to recover a nonsuit is proper.

APPEAL by plaintiff from Daniels, J., at March Term, 1929, of PITT. Affirmed.

W. C. Gorham and Julius Brown for plaintiff.

F. G. James Son for defendant.


Action to recover damages for personal injuries resulting from a collision, on a public crossing, between an automobile driven by plaintiff and defendant's train.

From judgment dismissing the action as upon nonsuit, plaintiff appealed to the Supreme Court.


Conceding that the evidence offered by the plaintiff tended to show that defendant was negligent as alleged in the complaint, this evidence also showed that plaintiff contributed to his injuries by his own negligence. There is no error in the judgment dismissing the action as upon nonsuit. Bailey v. R. R., 196 N.C. 515, 146 S.E. 135.

Affirmed.


Summaries of

Krouse v. R. R

Supreme Court of North Carolina
Oct 1, 1929
149 S.E. 853 (N.C. 1929)
Case details for

Krouse v. R. R

Case Details

Full title:C. M. KROUSE v. NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY

Court:Supreme Court of North Carolina

Date published: Oct 1, 1929

Citations

149 S.E. 853 (N.C. 1929)
197 N.C. 541

Citing Cases

Young v. R. R

The accepted principles of law applicable to the facts preclude recovery. Davidson v. R. R., 171 N.C. 634, 88…

Young v. Detroit Terminal R. Co.

Under the circumstances plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence as held by the circuit judge. The…