Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
7 North Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 2000–2020 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by North Carolina courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Allsup v. McVille, Inc.green2 sentences2020Co., 167 N.C. 232, 232 , 83 S.E. 347, 348 (1914) (stating that the plaintiff was contributorily negligent where, “[w]ith full knowledge of the dangerous conditions, and with his own lantern that had lighted his way to the station sitting by his side, he voluntarily went to the east platform in the darkness, where he knew the conditions were dangerous”); Allsup v. McVille, Inc., 139 N.C. App. 415, 416 , 533 S.E.2d 823, 824 (2000) (“The doctrine of contributory negligence will preclude a defendant’s liability if the visitor actually knew of the unsafe condition or if a hazard should have been ob 2020Co., 167 N.C. 232, 232 , 83 S.E. 347, 348 (1914) (stating that the plaintiff was contributorily negligent where, “[w]ith full knowledge of the dangerous conditions, and with his own lantern that had lighted his way to the station sitting by his side, he voluntarily went to the east platform in the darkness, where he knew the conditions were dangerous”); Allsup v. McVille, Inc., 139 N.C. App. 415, 416 , 533 S.E.2d 823, 824 (2000) (“The doctrine of contributory negligence will preclude a defendant’s liability if the visitor actually knew of the unsafe condition or if a hazard should have been ob | 5 | 5 |
Pulley v. Rex Hospitalred2 sentences2020Ultimately, regardless of whether the issue raised by defendant here is addressed in the context of a defendant’s duty to warn or in the context of a plaintiff’s contributory negligence, “the facts must be viewed in their totality to determine if there are factors which make the existence of a defect[,] . . . in light of the surrounding conditions, a breach of the defendant’s duty and less than ‘obvious’ to the plaintiff.”4 Pulley, 326 N.C. at 706 , 392 S.E.2d at 384 , abrogated by 4 Defendant argues that the Court of Appeals majority erred in applying this Court’s decision -18- Nelson, 349 N. 2020Ultimately, regardless of whether the issue raised by defendant here is addressed in the context of a defendant’s duty to warn or in the context of a plaintiff’s contributory negligence, “the facts must be viewed in their totality to determine if there are factors which make the existence of a defect[,] . . . in light of the surrounding conditions, a breach of the defendant’s duty and less than ‘obvious’ to the plaintiff.”4 Pulley, 326 N.C. at 706 , 392 S.E.2d at 384 , abrogated by 4 Defendant argues that the Court of Appeals majority erred in applying this Court’s decision -18- Nelson, 349 N. | 4 | 4 |
Dowless v. Kroger Co.green2 sentences2020Ultimately, regardless of whether the issue raised by defendant here is addressed in the context of a defendant’s duty to warn or in the context of a plaintiff’s contributory negligence, “the facts must be viewed in their totality to determine if there are factors which make the existence of a defect[,] . . . in light of the surrounding conditions, a breach of the defendant’s duty and less than ‘obvious’ to the plaintiff.”4 Pulley, 326 N.C. at 706 , 392 S.E.2d at 384 , abrogated by 4 Defendant argues that the Court of Appeals majority erred in applying this Court’s decision -18- Nelson, 349 N. 2020Ultimately, regardless of whether the issue raised by defendant here is addressed in the context of a defendant’s duty to warn or in the context of a plaintiff’s contributory negligence, “the facts must be viewed in their totality to determine if there are factors which make the existence of a defect[,] . . . in light of the surrounding conditions, a breach of the defendant’s duty and less than ‘obvious’ to the plaintiff.”4 Pulley, 326 N.C. at 706 , 392 S.E.2d at 384 , abrogated by 4 Defendant argues that the Court of Appeals majority erred in applying this Court’s decision -18- Nelson, 349 N. | 2 | 2 |
Dunnevant v. Southern Railway Co.green2 sentences2020Co., 167 N.C. 232, 232 , 83 S.E. 347, 348 (1914) (stating that the plaintiff was contributorily negligent where, “[w]ith full knowledge of the dangerous conditions, and with his own lantern that had lighted his way to the station sitting by his side, he voluntarily went to the east platform in the darkness, where he knew the conditions were dangerous”); Allsup v. McVille, Inc., 139 N.C. App. 415, 416 , 533 S.E.2d 823, 824 (2000) (“The doctrine of contributory negligence will preclude a defendant’s liability if the visitor actually knew of the unsafe condition or if a hazard should have been ob 2020Co., 167 N.C. 232, 232 , 83 S.E. 347, 348 (1914) (stating that the plaintiff was contributorily negligent where, “[w]ith full knowledge of the dangerous conditions, and with his own lantern that had lighted his way to the station sitting by his side, he voluntarily went to the east platform in the darkness, where he knew the conditions were dangerous”); Allsup v. McVille, Inc., 139 N.C. App. 415, 416 , 533 S.E.2d 823, 824 (2000) (“The doctrine of contributory negligence will preclude a defendant’s liability if the visitor actually knew of the unsafe condition or if a hazard should have been ob | 2 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Pulley v. Rex Hospitalred2 sentences2020Ultimately, regardless of whether the issue raised by defendant here is addressed in the context of a defendant’s duty to warn or in the context of a plaintiff’s contributory negligence, “the facts must be viewed in their totality to determine if there are factors which make the existence of a defect[,] . . . in light of the surrounding conditions, a breach of the defendant’s duty and less than ‘obvious’ to the plaintiff.”4 Pulley, 326 N.C. at 706 , 392 S.E.2d at 384 , abrogated by 4 Defendant argues that the Court of Appeals majority erred in applying this Court’s decision -18- Nelson, 349 N. 2020Ultimately, regardless of whether the issue raised by defendant here is addressed in the context of a defendant’s duty to warn or in the context of a plaintiff’s contributory negligence, “the facts must be viewed in their totality to determine if there are factors which make the existence of a defect[,] . . . in light of the surrounding conditions, a breach of the defendant’s duty and less than ‘obvious’ to the plaintiff.”4 Pulley, 326 N.C. at 706 , 392 S.E.2d at 384 , abrogated by 4 Defendant argues that the Court of Appeals majority erred in applying this Court’s decision -18- Nelson, 349 N. | 2 | 4 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Allsup v. McVille, Inc.
neutral
2 sentences2020Co., 167 N.C. 232, 232 , 83 S.E. 347, 348 (1914) (stating that the plaintiff was contributorily negligent where, “[w]ith full knowledge of the dangerous conditions, and with his own lantern that had lighted his way to the station sitting by his side, he voluntarily went to the east platform in the darkness, where he knew the conditions were dangerous”); Allsup v. McVille, Inc., 139 N.C. App. 415, 416 , 533 S.E.2d 823, 824 (2000) (“The doctrine of contributory negligence will preclude a defendant’s liability if the visitor actually knew of the unsafe condition or if a hazard should have been ob 2020Co., 167 N.C. 232, 232 , 83 S.E. 347, 348 (1914) (stating that the plaintiff was contributorily negligent where, “[w]ith full knowledge of the dangerous conditions, and with his own lantern that had lighted his way to the station sitting by his side, he voluntarily went to the east platform in the darkness, where he knew the conditions were dangerous”); Allsup v. McVille, Inc., 139 N.C. App. 415, 416 , 533 S.E.2d 823, 824 (2000) (“The doctrine of contributory negligence will preclude a defendant’s liability if the visitor actually knew of the unsafe condition or if a hazard should have been ob | 4 | 2012–2020 |
Nelson v. Freeland
green
2 sentences2020Ultimately, regardless of whether the issue raised by defendant here is addressed in the context of a defendant’s duty to warn or in the context of a plaintiff’s contributory negligence, “the facts must be viewed in their totality to determine if there are factors which make the existence of a defect[,] . . . in light of the surrounding conditions, a breach of the defendant’s duty and less than ‘obvious’ to the plaintiff.”4 Pulley, 326 N.C. at 706 , 392 S.E.2d at 384 , abrogated by 4 Defendant argues that the Court of Appeals majority erred in applying this Court’s decision -18- Nelson, 349 N. 2020Ultimately, regardless of whether the issue raised by defendant here is addressed in the context of a defendant’s duty to warn or in the context of a plaintiff’s contributory negligence, “the facts must be viewed in their totality to determine if there are factors which make the existence of a defect[,] . . . in light of the surrounding conditions, a breach of the defendant’s duty and less than ‘obvious’ to the plaintiff.”4 Pulley, 326 N.C. at 706 , 392 S.E.2d at 384 , abrogated by 4 Defendant argues that the Court of Appeals majority erred in applying this Court’s decision -18- Nelson, 349 N. | 2 | 2020–2020 |
Whitman v. Kiger
neutral
2 sentences2012App. 415, 416 , 533 S.E.2d 823, 824 (2000), aff’d, 353 N.C. 359 , 543 S.E.2d 476 (2001) (per curiam). 2012App. 415, 416 , 533 S.E.2d 823, 824 (2000), aff’d, 353 N.C. 359 , 543 S.E.2d 476 (2001) (per curiam). | 2 | 2012–2012 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.