TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Burnett v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad

Burnett v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company.

Burnett v. Atl. Coast Line R.R., 43 S.E. 797 (N.C. 1903)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of North Carolina · State Highest Courts
Decided
March 31, 1903
Judges
Montgomery
Citations
43 S.E. 797132 N.C. 2611903 N.C. LEXIS 271
Headnotes
NEGLIGENCE — Contributory Negligence — Hires—Demurrer—Pleadings. Where a person is injured as here, in attempting to extinguish a Are negligently set to her premises by a railroad company, the company is liable.
Summary
ActioN by Alexander Burnett, administrator, against the Atlantic Coast Line Railway Company, heard by Judge Oliver II. Allen, at October Term, 1902, of the Superior Court of Cumberland County. From the sustaining of a demurrer to the complaint the plaintiff appealed.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Montgomery

Montgomery, J.

This action was heard on the complaint and the demurrer thereto. The plaintiff alleged that his intestate had been fatally burned in her effort to extinguish a fire set upon the premises through the negligence of the defendant. In the third allegation of the complaint the plaintiff, after describing the nature of the fire and the threatened danger to her home and property, declared that she attempted to put out the fire, as it was her duty to do. The demurrer of course admitted that under the facts set out in the complaint it was her duty to attempt the extinguishment of the fire. That being so, in no sense could it be said that the plaintiff could be guilty of contributory negligence. To do *262 what she ought to have done under a given state of facts can not be anything but due care on her part. We can very readily conceive of conditions under which the law would impose a duty upon one whose property was in danger of being destroyed by a fire, carelessly set by another, to attempt its extinguishment; and this case is one where the defendant, by the demurrer, affords an example. The demurrer can not be held to be one to an erroneous conclusion of law, and therefore without the effect of a demurrer upon the facts.

The demurrer ought not to have been sustained.

Error.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1905: 11912: 11961: 11965: 119052026peak 1905 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Moore v. Beard-Laney, Inc.139 S.E.2d 879 (N.C. 1965)
  2. Pegram v. Railroad51 S.E. 975 (N.C. 1905)
  3. McKay v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad75 S.E. 1081 (N.C. 1912)
  4. Schmartz v. Harger171 A.2d 89 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1961)

Most recent

  1. Moore v. Beard-Laney, Inc.139 S.E.2d 879 (N.C. 1965)
  2. Schmartz v. Harger171 A.2d 89 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1961)
  3. McKay v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad75 S.E. 1081 (N.C. 1912)
  4. Pegram v. Railroad51 S.E. 975 (N.C. 1905)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list