Marshall v. Southern Railway Co.
62 S.E.2d 489, 233 N.C. 38 (1950)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the doctrine of contributory negligence, a plaintiff is completely barred from recovering damages if the plaintiff's own negligence was a proximate cause of their injury, regardless of any negligence by the defendant.
Facts:
- The specific underlying events and actions of the parties that led to the plaintiff's injury are not detailed in the court's opinion.
- The court bases its decision on an unstated set of facts from the trial record.
- The court concluded from these unstated facts that the plaintiff failed to exercise due care at the time of the injury.
- The court also concluded that the plaintiff's failure to exercise due care was a proximate cause of the resulting injury and damage.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiff initiated a negligence action against the defendant in a North Carolina trial court.
- At the close of the plaintiff's evidence, the trial court granted the defendant's motion for a judgment as of nonsuit, effectively dismissing the plaintiff's case.
- The plaintiff, as appellant, appealed the judgment of nonsuit to the Supreme Court of North Carolina.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a plaintiff's failure to exercise due care for their own safety, which proximately contributes to their injury, constitute contributory negligence that bars recovery from a potentially negligent defendant as a matter of law?
Opinions:
Majority - Winborne, J.
Yes. A plaintiff's failure to exercise due care for their own safety bars any recovery if that failure was a proximate cause of the injury. The doctrine of contributory negligence dictates that a plaintiff's negligence need not be the sole proximate cause of the injury to bar recovery; it is sufficient if it contributes to the injury as a proximate cause, or one of them. The court also reiterated the general rule that a motor vehicle operator must exercise ordinary care, keep a reasonably careful lookout, and operate the vehicle at a speed that allows them to stop within the range of their headlights. Based on the evidence presented, the court found that the plaintiff was contributorily negligent as a matter of law, thus justifying the nonsuit.
Analysis:
This case is a straightforward application of the common law doctrine of contributory negligence, a rule that was historically prevalent in tort law. The opinion reaffirms the harsh, all-or-nothing nature of this doctrine, where any fault by the plaintiff that contributes to the harm completely bars their claim. This decision stands in stark contrast to the modern majority rule of comparative negligence, where a plaintiff's recovery is merely reduced, not eliminated, by their own percentage of fault. The case serves as a clear example for students of a legal principle that, while now largely superseded, illustrates a fundamental stage in the evolution of tort law.
Unlock the full brief for Marshall v. Southern Railway Co.