History
  • No items yet
midpage
Messick v. Turnage
83 S.E.2d 654
N.C.
1954
Check Treatment
Higgins, J.

The negligence sufficiently pleaded in the complaint is to the effect that the defendant “knew or should have known . . . that said roof was leaking and in bad repair . . .” There is not a suggestion in the evidence that the roof was leaking and in bad repair. It was incumbent upon the plaintiff not only to prove negligence proximately causing her injury, but it was her duty to prove negligence substantially as alleged in her complaint. This she failed to do. Proof without. allegation is as unavailing as allegation without proof. Smith v. Barnes, 236 N.C. 176, 72 S.E. 2d 216; Bowen v. Darden, 233 N.C. 443, 64 S.E. 2d 285.

The judgment of the Superior Court of Beaufort County is

Affirmed.

Case Details

Case Name: Messick v. Turnage
Court Name: Supreme Court of North Carolina
Date Published: Sep 22, 1954
Citation: 83 S.E.2d 654
Docket Number: 20
Court Abbreviation: N.C.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.