Chambers v. Winston-Salem South Bound R. Co.
Decision Date | 05 November 1930 |
Docket Number | 362. |
Citation | 155 S.E. 571,199 N.C. 682 |
Parties | CHAMBERS v. WINSTON-SALEM SOUTH BOUND R. CO. et al. |
Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Appeal from Superior Court, Forsyth County; Clement, Judge.
Action by O. L. Chambers, administrator of the estate of O. L Chambers, Jr., deceased, against the Winston-Salem South Bound Railroad Company and another. From a judgment granting motion of defendant named for judgment as in case of a nonsuit, plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
This was an action for actionable negligence brought by plaintiff administrator of his son, against defendants.
Among other defenses, the defendant Winston-Salem South Bound Railroad Company says: "That there was no unity or concert of action, on the state of facts, as alleged by plaintiff in his complaint, between Winston-Salem South Bound Railroad Company and Richard Jones, defendants herein; that the acts of Richard Jones were the criminal acts of an independent third party, unexpectable and unforeseenable by this defendant, completely insulating any other negligent act, if any, which are expressly denied, and solely and proximately causing the injuries complained of by plaintiff and, that such acts on the part of Richard Jones are entirely separable from any other acts, complained of by plaintiff."
On February 12, 1928, about 3 o'clock p. m., the plaintiff's intestate, a lad 10 years of age was standing about 10 feet of West street crossing, in the city of Winston-Salem, N. C., on the sidewalk on the west side of the crossing. He was about 10 feet west of the railroad track. He was struck from the rear by an automobile driven by Richard Jones, the defendant, and knocked under the train and killed.
The plaintiff's witness, Edith Dudley, testified in part as follows: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Smith v. Sink
...207 N.C. 282, 176 S.E. 573; Ward v. R. R., 206 N.C. 530, 174 S.E. 443; Hinnant v. R. R., 202 N.C. 489, 163 S.E. 555; Chambers v. R. R., 199 N.C. 682, 155 S.E. 571; Burke v. Coach Co., 198 N.C. 8, 150 S.E. 636; Herman v. R. R., 197 N.C. 718, 150 S.E. 361; Hughes v. Luther, 189 N.C. 841, 128 ......
-
Newell v. Darnell
...N.C. 203, 39 S.E. 828; Lineberry v. R. R., 187 N.C. 786, 787, 123 S.E. 1; Herman v. R. R., 197 N.C. 718, 150 S.E. 361; Chambers v. R. R., 199 N.C. 682, 155 S.E. 571; Hinnant v. R. R., 202 N.C. 489, 163 S.E. 555; Ward v. R. R., 206 N.C. 530, 174 S.E. 443, and Beach v. Patton, 208 N.C. 134, 1......
-
Griffith v. Atchison
...... which run north and south, lying side by side and crossing. Central avenue. Griffith was stationed ... testimony." (pp. 561, 562, 563.). . . In. Chambers v. Winston-Salem South Bound R. Co., 199. N.C. 682, 155 S.E. 571, a boy ......