TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Richardson v. Southern Surety Co.

J. B. Richardson v. Southern Surety Company.

Richardson v. Southern Sur. Co., 139 S.E. 839 (N.C. 1927)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of North Carolina · State Highest Courts
Decided
November 2, 1927
Judges
PER CURIAM.
Citations
139 S.E. 839194 N.C. 469

Opinion of the Court — Per Curiam

Pee Cukiam.

Plaintiff, an employee of defendant, was engaged in loading rock, in a field, to be hauled to and used in the construction of a highway. Some of the rocks were too large to be loaded. Plaintiff was instructed by his foreman to burst these large rocks with a sledge hammer furnished him for that purpose. While bursting a large rock with this hammer, a piece of the rock flew up and hit him in the eye, injuring it.

Plaintiff alleged that defendant failed to furnish him with goggles or wire screens, to be used while bursting the rocks, for the protection of his eyes, and that such failure was negligence, causing his injury. Upon the facts of this case it cannot be held that it was the duty of defendant to furnish such goggles or wire-screens to plaintiff for his protection while engaged in the work for which he was employed. Plaintiff’s injury, upon all the evidence, was due to an accident, and was not caused by any negligence of defendant. The judgment dismissing the action is sustained by Whitt v. Rand, 187 N. C., 805 , and by Fore v. Geary, 191 N. C., 90 . The judgment is Affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

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

1934: 11937: 11951: 119342026peak 1934 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Johnson v. Wichita Valley Ry. Co.104 S.W.2d 128 (Tex. App. 1937)
  2. Muldrow v. Weinstein68 S.E.2d 249 (N.C. 1951)
  3. Schaum v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co.78 S.W.2d 439 (Mo. 1934)

Most recent

  1. Muldrow v. Weinstein68 S.E.2d 249 (N.C. 1951)
  2. Johnson v. Wichita Valley Ry. Co.104 S.W.2d 128 (Tex. App. 1937)
  3. Schaum v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co.78 S.W.2d 439 (Mo. 1934)

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 2

DepthCaseCited by
Whitt v. Rand, 123 S.E. 84 (N.C. 1924) 43
Fore v. Geary, 131 S.E. 387 (N.C. 1926) 10

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