Court Opinion

ID: 9812788
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 22:47:57.973935+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:26:31.914178
License: Public Domain

Clark, C. J.,
concurs on the further ground that the car coupler was a defective appliance and the defenses of “assumption of risk” and “contributory negligence” are barred by the *242statute, Revisal, 2636; Coley v. R. R., 128 N. C., 534; s. c., 129 N. C., 407; Elmore v. R. R., 132 N. C., 865. The facts in the last case are identical with those in this. To same effect is U. S. Stat., 1908, c. 149, sec. 3.
Hoke, J., concurs on concurring opinion of Clark, O. J.