Stamey v. Southern Ry. Co
Decision Date | 01 November 1935 |
Docket Number | No. 382.,382. |
Citation | 182 S.E. 130,208 N.C. 668 |
Parties | STAMEY. v. SOUTHERN RY. CO. |
Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Appeal from Superior Court, Iredell County; Sink, Judge.
Action by Julia Ann Stamey against Southern Railway Company. From a judgment of nonsuit, plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
Civil action to recover damages for alleged negligent injury.
On December 27, 1933, the plaintiff and her companions, Eula Moore and Daisy Stamey, were passengers on defendant's train going from Statesville to Catawba, a distance of about twelve miles. As the train approached Catawba Station, the plaintiff and her companions left their seats and went to the end of the car preparatory to leaving the train when it stopped.
Eula Moore testified for the plaintiff, in part, as follows:
From a judgment of nonsuit entered at the close of plaintiff's evidence, she appeals, assigning errors.
John W. Wallace, Andrew C. Mcintosh, and John R. McLaughlin, all of Statesville, for appellant.
R. C. Kelly, of Greensboro, Jack Joyn-er, of Statesville, and W. C. Feimster, of Newton, for appellee.
A passenger on a moving train is not justified in jumping therefrom to his injury by the mere fact that he is being-carried by or beyond his station. Carter v. Seaboard A. L. R. Co., 165 N. C. 244, 81 S. E. 321. The general rule is that a passenger who is injured while alighting from a moving train may not recover for such injuries. Burgin v. Richmond R. Co., 115 N. C. 673, 20 S. E. 473; ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Smith v. Sink
......When contributory negligence is established by plaintiff's own evidence. Wright v. Grocery Co., 210 N.C. 462, 187 S.E. 564;. Stamey v. R. R., 208 N.C. 668, 182 S.E. 130; Tart v. R. R., 202 N.C. 52, 161 S.E. 720; Scott v. Tel. Co., 198 N.C. 795, 153 S.E. 413; Davis v. ......
-
Smith v. Sink
......Stamey v. R. R., 208 N.C. 668, 182 S.E. 130; Tart v. R. R., 202 N.C. 52, 161 S.E. 720;. Scott v. Tel. Co., 198 N.C. 795, 153 S.E. 413;. Davis v. ......
-
Hollingsworth v. Burns
......300,. 53 S.E. 891, 896, 7 L.R.A. (N.S.) 335, 8 Ann.Cas. 638;. Alexander v. City of Statesville, 165 N.C. 527, 81. S.E. 763: Fry v. Southern Public Utilities Co., 183. N.C. 281, 111 S.E. 354; Ghorley v. Atlanta & C. A. L. R. Co., 189 N.C. 634, 127 S.E. 634; Hoggard v. Atlantic. Coast ... Lincoln v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 207 N.C. 787,. 178 S.E. 601. He says he knowingly took a chance and lost. Stamey v. Southern R. Co., 208 N.C. 668, 182 S.E. 130. The judge so stated in charging the jury, but left it to. them to say what its effect should be, ......
-
Hollingsworth v. Burns
......300, 53 S.E. 891, 896, 7 L.R.A.(N.S.) 335, 8 Ann.Cas. 638; Alexander v. City of Statesville, 165 N.C. 527, 81 S.E. 763: Fry v. Southern Public Utilities Co, 183 N.C. 281, 111 S.E. 354; Ghorley v. Atlanta & C. A. L. R. Co, 189 N.C. 634, 127 S.E. 634; Hoggard v. Atlantic Coast Line ...Lincoln v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 207 N.C. 787, 178 S.E. 601. He says he knowingly took a chance and lost. Stamey v. Southern R. Co., 208 N.C. 668, 182 S.E. 130. The judge so stated in charging the jury, but left it to them to say what its effect should be, ......