Loflin v. North Carolina R. Co
| Decision Date | 30 June 1936 |
| Docket Number | No. 666.,666. |
| Citation | 210 N.C. 404,186 S.E. 493 |
| Parties | LOFLIN. v. NORTH CAROLINA R. CO. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Appeal from Superior Court, Davidson County; Shaw, Emergency Judge.
Action by Freeze Loflin against the North Carolina Railroad Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.
No error.
Don A. Walser, of Lexington, and Linn & Linn, of Salisbury, for appellant.
Phillips & Bower and Spruill & Olive, all of Lexington, for appellee.
This was a civil action to recover damages for personal injuries and for destruction of an automobile alleged to have been proximately caused by the negligence of the defendant. The defendant pleaded the contributory negligence of the plaintiff in bar of his recovery. The defendant offered no evidence, and in the course of the trial conceded its own negligence, and upon its appeal presents but one question, namely, did the court err in denying its motion for judgment as of nonsuit, upon the ground that the plaintiff's evidence showed that he was guilty of contributory negligence.
The evidence, construed most favorably to the plaintiff as it must be upon a motion to nonsuit, tended to show that the plaintiff, Freeze Loflin, in December, 1934, was working for the Hughes Lumber Company in Thomasville, which was located about 600 feet from the crossing of East End street and the tracks of the defendant; that there were four tracks, the first known as the Belt Line track, the second as the northbound track, the third as the southbound track, and the fourth as the switch track. Between 10 and 11 o'clock a. m., the plaintiff got in his Chevrolet automobile and started to drive from thelumber company's plant, located on the south side of defendant's tracks, to his brother's store, located on the north side thereof. While traveling along East End street, and when in about 43 feet from the Belt Line track, the plaintiff stopped his car, looked up and down the track of the defendant, and, not seeing nor hearing any train, approached the crossing with his automobile in low gear and traveling 4 or 5 miles per hour. When he reached the first track of the defendant, the Belt Line track, he again looked up and down said tracks, and, not seeing nor hearing any train, continued on across the northbound track, and when his car was on the third track, the southbound track, he saw the defendant's train about 100 yards away, coming at a very rapid rate of speed, and, realizing that he did not have time to get...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Miller v. North Carolina R. Co.
... ... thus made only to meet his death. On appeal by the defendant ... this Court said the case was for the jury. At a companion ... crossing further north in Thomasville, where there were also ... some obstructions, the plaintiff suffered injury and this ... Court affirmed the recovery. Loflin v. North Carolina ... Railroad Co., 210 N.C. 404, 186 S.E. 493. Later, as a ... better safeguard to the traveling public in this busy city, ... at the crossing involved in this case, the defendants ... installed modern automatic electric signals for the safety of ... the traveling public ... ...
-
Meacham v. Southern Ry. Co
...755; Johnson v. R. Co, 163 N.C. 431, 79 S.E. 690, Ann.Cas.l915B, 598; Morrow v. R. Co, 146 N.C. 14, 59 S.E. 158. Compare Loflin v. R. Co, 210 N.C. 404, 186 S.E. 493; Weston v. R. Co, 194 N.C. 210, 139 S.E. 237; Lee v. R. Co, 180 N.C. 413, 105 S.E. 15. Opaqueness of the atmosphere, if establ......
-
State v. Stewart
...186 S.E. 488 210 N.C. 362 STATE v. STEWART et al. No. 651.Supreme Court of North CarolinaJune 30, 1936 ... Appeal ... from Superior Court, Guilford County; ... licensed to practise his profession in North Carolina. He ... said: "I had an office at 803 1/2 East Market Street, in ... the City of Greensboro, ... ...
-
Cooper v. Town of Southern Pines
...there is no contributory negligence as a matter of law. See Coltrain v. R.R., 216 N.C. 263, 4 S.E.2d 853 (1939); Loflin v. R.R., 210 N.C. 404, 186 S.E. 493 (1936). We conclude that plaintiff presented evidence that would support a finding that Town's negligence was a proximate cause of her ......