Opinion

Carleton v. Railroad

  • 143 N.C. 43
  • 55 S.E. 429
  • 1906 N.C. LEXIS 311
Court
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Filed
Nov 13, 1906
Status
Published
Author
Olar
On the bench
Bbown, Olar, Oonwoe
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 14.5%

The opinion

OlaR.K, C. J.,

concurring with Mr. Justice, Brown: Barring the word “jointly,” which doubtless was unadvisedly used in the complaint, I think that there is no liability accruing to the North Carolina Railroad Company by reason of any misconduct of the conductor of the Yadkin Valley Railroad Company, simply because both roads had been leased to the same lessee. There is no contract between the two lessors. Nor when the Yadkin Valley Railroad Company, acting through its lessee, contracted to take a passenger from Norwood to Salisbury, did any liability arise to the North Carolina Railroad Company for mistreatment of a passenger, from the fact that the Yadkin Railroad Company ran its train for one and a half miles over the track of the North Carolina Railroad Company. The latter would be responsible to the public, as for fires set out by the Yadkin train while on its track (Aycock v. Railroad, 89 N. C., 321 ) or injury accruing to any one on its tracks, but it would not be liable for any breach of contract or tort by the Yadkin Company to its passengers or employees: Washington v. Railroad, 101 N. C., 239 ; White v. Railroad, 115 N. C., 631 . The North Carolina Railroad Company was not lessee of the Yadkin Railroad, nor was it operating the latter’s train merely because its own .train ran over the North Carolina Railroad track a short distance.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.