Tribble v. Swinson
Cases that cite this one
13 later published cases cite this decision.
- Robinson v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. (N.C. 1939)
- Lindsey v. Leonard (N.C. 1952)
- Carter v. . Motor Lines (N.C. 1947)
- Harris v. . Carter (N.C. 1947)
- Rogers v. Town of Black Mountain (N.C. 1944)
- Walker v. . Manson (N.C. 1943)
- Salmon v. . Pearce (N.C. 1943)
- Smith v. . Duke University (N.C. 1941)
- Smith v. . Moore (N.C. 1941)
- Creech v. National Linen Service Corp. (N.C. 1941)
- Pinnix v. Griffin (N.C. 1941)
- McLamb v. . Beasley (N.C. 1940)
- McLamb v. Beasley (N.C. 1940)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
The evidence for plaintiff fails to make out a prima facie case on the essential facts necessary under the doctrine of re-spondeat superior to hold the defendant Swinson responsible for the alleged negligent acts or tort of the defendant Yita. These essentials have been stated repeatedly in decisions of this Court, among which are: Linville v. Nissen, 162 N. C., 95, 77 S. E., 1096; Grier v. Grier, 192 N. C., 760, 135 S. E., 852; Martin v. Bus Line, 197 N. C., 720, 150 S. E., 501; Jeffrey v. Mfg. Co., 197 N. C., 724, 150 S. E., 503; Cole v. Funeral Home, 207 N. C., 271, 176 S. E., 553; Van Landingham v. Sewing Machine Co., 207 N. C., 355, 177 S. E., 126; Shoemake v. Refining Co., 208 N. C., 124, 179 S. E., 334; Parrish v. Mfg. Co., 211 N. C., 7, 188 S. E., 817; Liverman v. Cline, 212 N. C., 43, 192 S. E., 902.
The decision in the Van Landingham case, supra, is particularly pertinent to the present case.
Judgment of the court below is
Affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.