{
  "id": 8551769,
  "name": "DANIEL E. WILLIAMS v. CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Williams v. Carolina Power & Light Co.",
  "decision_date": "1978-04-18",
  "docket_number": "No. 7720SC545",
  "first_page": "146",
  "last_page": "148",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "36 N.C. App. 146"
    }
  ],
  "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": "233 S.E. 2d 392",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1977,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "292 N.C. 265",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8568579,
        8568676,
        8568622,
        8568499,
        8568541
      ],
      "year": 1977,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/292/0265-03",
        "/nc/292/0265-05",
        "/nc/292/0265-04",
        "/nc/292/0265-01",
        "/nc/292/0265-02"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "231 S.E. 2d 31",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1977,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "32 N.C. App. 169",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8549270
      ],
      "year": 1977,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/32/0169-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "151 S.E. 2d 1",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1966,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "per curiam"
        },
        {
          "page": "4"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "268 N.C. 547",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8563768
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1966,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "per curiam"
        },
        {
          "page": "551"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/268/0547-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "222 S.E. 2d 695",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1976,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "289 N.C. 296",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8568202,
        8568236,
        8568172,
        8568112,
        8568149
      ],
      "year": 1976,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/289/0296-04",
        "/nc/289/0296-05",
        "/nc/289/0296-03",
        "/nc/289/0296-01",
        "/nc/289/0296-02"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "219 S.E. 2d 308",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1975,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "27 N.C. App. 318",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8553213
      ],
      "year": 1975,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/27/0318-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "281 N.C. 516",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8575528,
        8575516,
        8575502
      ],
      "year": 1972,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/281/0516-03",
        "/nc/281/0516-02",
        "/nc/281/0516-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "186 S.E. 2d 897",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1972,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "280 N.C. 513",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8572831
      ],
      "year": 1972,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/280/0513-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 379,
    "char_count": 5521,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.816,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 3.137942941563016e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8617035201666198
    },
    "sha256": "e69ff6850809e0a0c08d82677ae1f35cbf13858f62a5571383593ac56272eba9",
    "simhash": "1:fc30d2f0a53f7c72",
    "word_count": 929
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:02:41.791978+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Morris and Martin concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "DANIEL E. WILLIAMS v. CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "ARNOLD, Judge.\nThe sole question for consideration on this appeal is whether the trial judge properly entered summary judgment for defendant. Under G.S. 1A-1, Rule 56, summary judgment is proper where there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and a party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Koontz v. City of Winston-Salem, 280 N.C. 513, 186 S.E. 2d 897, rehearing denied, 281 N.C. 516, --- S.E. 2d --- (1972). In a negligence action, summary judgment for defendant is proper where the evidence fails to establish negligence on the part of defendant, establishes contributory negligence on the part of plaintiff, or establishes that the alleged negligent conduct was not the proximate cause of the injury. Bogle v. Power Co., 27 N.C. App. 318, 219 S.E. 2d 308 (1975), cert. denied 289 N.C. 296, 222 S.E. 2d 695 (1976).\nOur courts, in Floyd v. Nash, 268 N.C. 547, 151 S.E. 2d 1 (1966) (per curiam), and Lambert v. Power Co., 32 N.C. App. 169, 231 S.E. 2d 31, cert. denied 292 N.C. 265, 233 S.E. 2d 392 (1977), have dealt with problems similar to the one before us. In Floyd, plaintiff\u2019s intestate died as a result of electrical shock when the blower tank of his truck came in contact with the uninsulated electrical wires of the defendant power company. The court, in affirming a judgment of nonsuit for each defendant, held that plaintiff\u2019s intestate was contributorily negligent as a matter of law.\n\u201cEven if negligence by either of these defendants could reasonably be inferred upon the evidence in this record, the evidence leads inescapably to the conclusion that the deceased . . . was guilty of contributory negligence. Knowing of the presence of the power line, and having filled this tank on many previous occasions, the deceased, for some unknown reason, permitted the metal blower pipe ... to come in contact with the power line. This tragic lapse of attention to a known danger in the immediate vicinity must be deemed negligence by the deceased.\u201d 268 N.C. at 551, 151 S.E. 2d at 4.\nIn Lambert, supra, plaintiff sustained serious injuries as a result of electrical shock while he was putting a new facing on an outdoor advertising sign. Again, the evidence showed that plaintiff was aware of the electrical wire but misjudged how close he was to it. This Court held that plaintiff was contributorily negligent as a matter of law and affirmed summary judgment in favor of defendant.\nBased on these cases, we conclude that the trial court properly granted summary judgment for defendant. While it appears that plaintiff in this case, unlike the injured parties in Floyd and Lambert, had not been to the scene of the accident before the day of the injury, it is clear from the record that he had knowledge of the presence of the wires. In a deposition of the plaintiff which was submitted in support of defendant\u2019s motion, the plaintiff stated:\n\u201cQ. Did you see the wires?\n\u201cA. Yes, sir.\n\u201cQ. Did you and Mr. Vickery [plaintiff\u2019s co-worker] talk about those wires?\n\u201cA. The best I remember, I told him to make sure that we didn\u2019t let the ladder hit the wires.\n\u201cQ. Why did you tellvhim that?\n\u201cA. Well, I don\u2019t want to hit a wire no matter where it\u2019s at, you know, with a ladder.\n\u201cQ. You know what it can do to you?\n\u201cA. Yes, sir.\u201d\nSince plaintiff had previously cautioned his co-worker not to allow the ladder to contact the wires, his own conduct thereafter in removing the ladder is evidence which establishes a \u201ctragic lapse of attention to a known danger,\u201d Floyd v. Nash, supra, and constituted negligence as a matter of law. See also Bogle v. Power Co., supra.\nSummary judgment for defendant is, therefore\nAffirmed.\nJudges Morris and Martin concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "ARNOLD, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Henry T. Drake for plaintiff appellant.",
      "Fred D. Poisson and E. Avery Hightower for defendant appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "DANIEL E. WILLIAMS v. CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY\nNo. 7720SC545\n(Filed 18 April 1978)\nElectricity \u00a7 8\u2014 ladder coming into contact with power lines \u2014 contributory negligence of plaintiff\nIn an action to recover for damages sustained by plaintiff when a ladder which he was handling came in contact with an electrical line maintained by defendant, summary judgment was properly entered for defendant where it appeared that plaintiff knew of the presence of the wires, cautioned his coworker not to allow the ladder to contact the wires, and was himself negligent in touching the wire with the ladder.\nAPPEAL by plaintiff from Wood, Judge. Judgment entered 2 March 1977, in Superior Court, ANSON County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 31 March 1978.\nIn summary the pertinent allegations of plaintiffs complaint are as follows:\nOn 22 January 1973, plaintiff undertook to repair a gutter on a house belonging to Frank Tucker. In order to repair the gutter, plaintiff had to place an aluminum ladder, 30 feet long, against the house. During the progress of plaintiff\u2019s work, the ladder came in contact with uninsulated lines and wires maintained by defendant. Defendant was negligent in maintaining uninsulated, high voltage power lines, at such a place and at such height, and in failing to warn plaintiff or Frank Tucker of the dangerous wires. Plaintiff sought $400,000 actual damages and $1,200,000 in punitive damages.\nDefendant answered and averred, among other things, that plaintiff was contributorily negligent in attempting to take down the 36\u2019 aluminum ladder which had been wired so as not to be collapsible. Pursuant to G.S. 1A-1, Rule 56, defendant moved for summary judgment and, from summary judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals.\nHenry T. Drake for plaintiff appellant.\nFred D. Poisson and E. Avery Hightower for defendant appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0146-01",
  "first_page_order": 174,
  "last_page_order": 176
}