# Bailey v. . Meadows Company

> Supreme Court of North Carolina · May 17, 1910 · 152 N.C. 603

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3671431

## Case

- **Full name:** W. D. Bailey v. the Meadows Company and Carolina, Clinchfield and Ohio Railway Company.
- **Court:** Supreme Court of North Carolina
- **Decided:** May 17, 1910
- **Citations:** 152 N.C. 603; 68 S.E. 11; 1910 N.C. LEXIS 324
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion of the court by Brown
- **Judges:** Brown
- **Cited by:** 2 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3671431

## Opinion text

*604
Brown, J.
Taking the plaintiff’s evidence in the most favorable view for him, we are of opinion that the motion to nonsuit should have been sustained. The plaintiff was working on the construction force engaged in building a railroad. The railroad was not in operation, as the rails were then being laid. Plaintiff and two fellow-servants were engaged in loading rails on a cai‘ by order of a foreman. Plaintiff states that,
“We
had our hands under the rail and they were so close that they dropped the rail on my hand before I could get it out.” It is plain from plaintiff’s own evidence that his injury was caused by the negligence of his fellow-servants, or else that it was the result of an unavoidable accident. In neither event would defendants be liable.
As the road was being constructed' and not'Operated, the principles laid down in
Nicholson v. R. R.,
138 N. C., 516 , and reiterated at this term in
O’Neal v. R. R., ante
404, bar a recovery. The motion to'nonsuit is sustained.
Reversed..

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3671431. Public record. Not legal advice.