{
  "id": 8556296,
  "name": "ELIJAH PLUM ALLIGOOD v. SEABOARD COASTLINE RAILROAD",
  "name_abbreviation": "Alligood v. Seaboard Coastline Railroad",
  "decision_date": "1974-05-01",
  "docket_number": "No. 742SC199",
  "first_page": "419",
  "last_page": "421",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "21 N.C. App. 419"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.",
    "id": 14983,
    "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "172 S.E. 2d 502",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1970,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "276 N.C. 398",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8561528
      ],
      "year": 1970,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/276/0398-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "189 S.E. 2d 608",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1972,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "15 N.C. App. 130",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8548022
      ],
      "year": 1972,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/15/0130-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "180 S.E. 2d 297",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1971,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "278 N.C. 390",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8560580
      ],
      "year": 1971,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/278/0390-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 302,
    "char_count": 4787,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.604,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.087085966315723e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3793518463817775
    },
    "sha256": "75db9bbd5c1678af0e3546855cac21201d16233ee6894e011b910e2f265b1a33",
    "simhash": "1:5b82e9a3d409d159",
    "word_count": 827
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:32:29.924632+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Morris and Vaughn concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "ELIJAH PLUM ALLIGOOD v. SEABOARD COASTLINE RAILROAD"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "CAMPBELL, Judge.\nWe have considered all the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and hold that there was no error in the trial court\u2019s granting the motion for directed verdict. As to the contributory negligence of the plaintiff driver, we hold that this case falls within the exception to Cutts v. Casey, 278 N.C. 390, 180 S.E. 2d 297 (1971), as outlined in Wyche v. Alexander, 15 N.C. App. 130, 189 S.E. 2d 608 (1972), and Price v. Conley, filed in the Court of Appeals on 17 April 1974, in that the granting of a directed verdict for the party with the burden of proof is permissible when the only evidence was plaintiff\u2019s own evidence and defendant\u2019s burden is met for him by the plaintiff. Compare with Brown v. R. R. Co. and Phillips v. R. R. Co., 276 N.C. 398, 172 S.E. 2d 502 (1970).\nAffirmed.\nJudges Morris and Vaughn concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "CAMPBELL, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Wilkinson, Vosburgh & Thompson by John A. Wilkinson for plaintiff appellant.",
      "Rodman, Rodmam, & Archie by Edward N. Rodman and Frederick N. Holscher for defendant appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "ELIJAH PLUM ALLIGOOD v. SEABOARD COASTLINE RAILROAD\nNo. 742SC199\n(Filed 1 May 1974)\n1. Railroads \u00a7 7\u2014 crossing accident \u2014 contributory negligence of truck driver\nIn an action to recover damages for personal injuries sustained when plaintiff\u2019s truck and defendant\u2019s train collided, the trial court properly granted defendant\u2019s motion for a directed verdict where the evidence tended to show that plaintiff observed signs and knew that he was approaching a railroad crossing, plaintiff did not reduce his speed, and plaintiff collided with the train after it entered the crossing.\n2. Rules of Civil Procedure \u00a7 50\u2014 directed verdict for party with burden of proof\nTrial court did not err in granting defendant\u2019s motion for a directed verdict on the grounds that the evidence failed to establish negligence on the part of defendant but did establish contributory negligence as a matter of law on the part of the plaintiff, since the granting of a directed verdict for the party with the burden of proof is permissible when the only evidence is plaintiff\u2019s own evidence and defendant\u2019s burden is met for him by the plaintiff.\nAppeal by plaintiff from Martin (Harry C.), Judge at the 8 October 1973 Session of Beaufort Superior Court.\nHeard in the Court of Appeals 11 April 1974.\nThis is a civil action for the recovery of damages for personal injuries and damages sustained to plaintiff\u2019s truck in a collision with a train owned by the defendant Seaboard Coastline Railroad.\nOn 22 May 1972, the plaintiff loaded his pickup truck with some seventy sheets of tin or iron and five or six hundred pounds of nails at Moore\u2019s Building Supplies in Washington, North Carolina. Plaintiff then proceeded from Moore\u2019s Building Supplies out Fifth Street to Clark\u2019s Neck Road (State Road 1403) where he turned left and proceeded south down Clark\u2019s Neck Road.\nThe railroad tracks in question are perpendicular to Clark\u2019s Neck Road and are located five hundred feet south down Clark\u2019s Neck Road from Fifth Street. Sixty-nine feet north of the tracks on the western side of the road is located a warehouse. The warehouse is 22.5 feet wide, 413 feet long, is parallel to the tracks and was 28 feet from the western edge of the road.\nPlaintiff testified that he had been over this crossing at other times. He further testified that as he proceeded south along Clark\u2019s Neck Road, he noticed the railroad crossing sign located 300-340 feet north of the tracks on Clark\u2019s Neck Road and the sign located at the crossing itself and that he knew he was approaching a railroad crossing. The plaintiff testified that after he turned onto Clark\u2019s Neck Road, he built up his speed to 20-25 miles per hour and did not slow down at any time before he applied his brakes. Plaintiff further testified that it was 3:55 p.m. on a \u201cpretty, sunshiny day.\u201d He testified:\n\u201cWhen I cleared the building, I heard the whistle on the train. The train then was in the edge of the road, coming around the building, is the only time I heard any whistle blow.\nI run into it. I locked the wheels on my truck and just eased right into it, just did touch the tank on the train, and it tore my truck, throwed it over in the ditch with me and Mr. Waters in it.\n\u2756 * * *\nThe train was going between 25 and 30, somewhere along in there.\u201d\nAt the close of plaintiff\u2019s evidence, defendant moved for a directed verdict on the grounds the evidence, even when taken in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, failed to establish actionable negligence on the part of the defendant and that the evidence taken in the light most favorable to the plaintiff established contributory negligence as a matter of law on the part of the plaintiff. From the granting of defendant\u2019s motion and dismissal of the action, plaintiff appealed.\nWilkinson, Vosburgh & Thompson by John A. Wilkinson for plaintiff appellant.\nRodman, Rodmam, & Archie by Edward N. Rodman and Frederick N. Holscher for defendant appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0419-01",
  "first_page_order": 447,
  "last_page_order": 449
}