Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

plaintiffdefendantnegligencecontributory negligence
plaintiffnegligencecontributory negligence

Related Cases

Blunier v. Staggs, 250 Or.App. 215, 279 P.3d 826
View Case »
Rentmeester v. Nike, Inc., 883 F.3d 1111, 2018 Copr.L.Dec. P 31,235, 125 U.S.P.Q.2d 1912, 46 Media L. Rep. 1488, 18 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1948, 2018 Daily Journal D.A.R. 1810
View Case »
Granite Music Corp. v. United Artists Corp., 532 F.2d 718, 189 U.S.P.Q. 406
View Case »
Smiley v. Van Winkle, 6 Cal. 605, 1856 WL 876
View Case »
McClung v. North Bend Coal & Coke Co., 6 Ohio C.D. 243, 9 Ohio C.C. 259, 18 Ohio C.C. 864, 2 Ohio Dec. 531, 1895 WL 457
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Harrison v. North Carolina R. Co., 194 N.C. 656, 140 S.E. 598

Facts

On May 20, 1925, Charles Lomax drove his Ford coupé onto the tracks of the North Carolina Railroad at a public crossing in Landis, N.C., after waiting for a freight train to pass. As he began to cross, he was struck by a fast northbound passenger train. Eyewitnesses testified that Lomax did not look for the approaching train before entering the crossing, and evidence suggested that he could have seen the train had he looked. The case was brought to court to determine negligence and contributory negligence.

On May 20, 1925, Charles Lomax drove his Ford coupé onto the tracks of the North Carolina Railroad at a public crossing in Landis, N.C., after waiting for a freight train to pass.

Issue

Did the plaintiff's intestate, Charles Lomax, exhibit contributory negligence that would bar recovery for wrongful death against the North Carolina Railroad Company?

Did the plaintiff's intestate, Charles Lomax, exhibit contributory negligence that would bar recovery for wrongful death against the North Carolina Railroad Company?

Rule

A traveler approaching a railroad crossing must exercise care and prudence, including looking and listening for approaching trains. If a traveler fails to do so and is injured, their negligence can bar recovery.

A traveler approaching a railroad crossing must exercise care and prudence, including looking and listening for approaching trains.

Analysis

The court analyzed the evidence presented, noting that the plaintiff's intestate had a duty to look for the train before crossing the tracks. Eyewitnesses indicated that there was nothing obstructing Lomax's view of the approaching train, and his failure to look constituted contributory negligence. The court concluded that Lomax's negligence was a proximate cause of the accident, which warranted a judgment of nonsuit in favor of the defendant.

The court analyzed the evidence presented, noting that the plaintiff's intestate had a duty to look for the train before crossing the tracks.

Conclusion

The court reversed the judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, concluding that the evidence demonstrated clear contributory negligence on the part of Charles Lomax.

The court reversed the judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, concluding that the evidence demonstrated clear contributory negligence on the part of Charles Lomax.

Who won?

North Carolina Railroad Company prevailed in the case because the court found that the plaintiff's intestate was contributorily negligent, which barred recovery.

North Carolina Railroad Company prevailed in the case because the court found that the plaintiff's intestate was contributorily negligent, which barred recovery.

You must be