{
  "id": 8548535,
  "name": "ANNIE MARTIN v. THE JEWEL BOX OF ASHEBORO, NORTH CAROLINA, INCORPORATED",
  "name_abbreviation": "Martin v. Jewel Box of Asheboro",
  "decision_date": "1969-10-22",
  "docket_number": "No. 6919SC420",
  "first_page": "429",
  "last_page": "432",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "6 N.C. App. 429"
    }
  ],
  "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": "90 S.E. 2d 392",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1955,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "243 N.C. 268",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8623818
      ],
      "year": 1955,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/243/0268-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "130 S.E. 2d 397",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1963,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "259 N.C. 264",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8560021
      ],
      "year": 1963,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/259/0264-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 460,
    "char_count": 8140,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.571,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.20585775464129377
    },
    "sha256": "72ebaf5413d1880b04a84d7235b41ad0c883e0ce0ea8cf0c08f4f96b302b100a",
    "simhash": "1:3ac778a933801cd3",
    "word_count": 1374
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:07:50.917320+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "MallaRD, C.J., and Hedrick, J., concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "ANNIE MARTIN v. THE JEWEL BOX OF ASHEBORO, NORTH CAROLINA, INCORPORATED"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mobris, J.\nDefendant, among others, assigns as error the overruling of his motion for judgment of nonsuit.\nOur review of the evidence leads us to the inescapable conclusion that the plaintiff has failed to show any causal connection between her alleged injuries and the alleged negligent act, if, indeed, she has shown any negligent act. Plaintiff produced no expert testimony, either medical or with respect to the contents of the fluorescent tube. She alleges in her complaint that the breaking of the tube set up phosphors light powder which contained beryllium and other unknown poisonous substances. Her evidence is completely devoid of any proof of what elements the tube, or powder, contained or whether whatever it contained was or could be harmful if inhaled.\nIf it be conceded that plaintiff has sufficiently shown that defendant was negligent in placing the tubes in the garbage can, the question still remains as to whether this alleged negligence was the proximate cause of plaintiff\u2019s injuries. There must be causal relationship between the breach of duty by defendant and the injury received by plaintiff. Reason v. Sewing Machine Co., 259 N.C. 264, 130 S.E. 2d 397 (1963).\nIn the Reason case, plaintiff had alleged that she received serious and permanent injury to her eyes from oil sprayed from a sewing machine. There was medical testimony that hot oil could have caused the disease or that unheated oil might, depending upon its chemical composition. There was no evidence that the oil was hot nor was there evidence of its chemical composition. The Court affirmed the trial tribunal\u2019s granting of motion for judgment as of nonsuit and quoted from the case of Hanrahan v. Walgreen Co., 243 N.C. 268, 90 S.E. 2d 392 (1955), where plaintiff had alleged injury resulting from a poisonous substance in a hair rinse. There the Court, in sustaining a nonsuit, said, \u201cIt may be there was a poisonous substance in the hair rinse, but there is no evidence to support such a conjecture.\u201d\nThere is no evidence of the nature of plaintiff\u2019s illness, except her own evidence that she was very nauseated and could not eat for a long period of time. Neither is there any medical evidence as to whether plaintiff\u2019s illness was of such character that it could or would probably, in the light of medical experience, be caused by inhaling the chemical components of the fumes or powder resulting from the breaking of the fluorescent tube. Reason v. Sewing Machine Co., supra.\nDefendant\u2019s other assignments of error are not discussed since we reach the conclusion that plaintiff\u2019s evidence is not sufficient to establish actionable negligence and the motion for nonsuit should have been granted.\nReversed.\nMallaRD, C.J., and Hedrick, J., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mobris, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Ottway Burton for plaintiff appellee.",
      "Jordan, Wright, Nichols, Caff rey and Hill, by Karl N. Hill, Jr., for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "ANNIE MARTIN v. THE JEWEL BOX OF ASHEBORO, NORTH CAROLINA, INCORPORATED\nNo. 6919SC420\n(Filed 22 October 1969)\n1. Poisons; Negligence \u00a7 29\u2014 inhalation of powder from fluorescent tubes \u2014 nausea \u2014 proximate cause \u2014 nonsuit\nPlaintiff\u2019s testimony that she became nauseated and was unable to eat for a long period of time as a result of inhaling the powder released from a fluorescent light tube that fell from defendant\u2019s garbage can and broke on the sidewalk while plaintiff was passing hy, held insufficient to withstand defendant\u2019s motion for nonsuit, where there was no' evidence relating to the contents of the tube or to the nature of plaintiff\u2019s illness, nor was there medical. evidence that plaintiff\u2019s illness was of such a character that would probably, in the light of medical experience, be caused by inhaling the chemical components of the powder.\n2. Negligence \u00a7 8\u2014 proximate cause\nThere must be causal relationship between the breach of duty by defendant and the injury received by plaintiff.\nAppeal by defendant from Crissman, J., 7 April 1969 Civil Session Superior Court of RaNdolph County.\nThis action was instituted on 4 November 1955 for the recovery of damages resulting from personal injury allegedly caused by defendant\u2019s negligence. The matter came on for trial at the 7 April 1969 Session of the Superior Court of Randolph County. The jury awarded plaintiff $1000 and defendant appealed.\nPlaintiff alleged that on or about 3 December 1952, defendant through its agents and employees, deposited, in a careless and reckless manner, in a garbage can located on the sidewalk of North Street poisonous fluorescent light bulbs which had been burned out. Plaintiff, a seamstress, maintained her business in an upstairs room in the same building in which defendant operated its business. The garbage'can is located immediately across from the stairway leading to the upstairs portion of the building. On 3 December 1952, after plaintiff had closed her shop and at about 6 o\u2019clock p.m. \u201cas she passed by said garbage can of the defendant, it had several dangerous used fluorescent light tubes negligently and carelessly stuck in the said garbage can with their ends sticking out at various angles. That these tubes were on the top of the other garbage, and as the plaintiff passed by the said garbage can one of the dangerous and poisonous tubes fell out and broke immediately in her presence, setting up phosphors light powder, which the plaintiff alleges upon information and belief, contained beryllium and other unknown poisonous substances. That when the poisonous used fluorescent tube fell to the sidewalk immediately beside the garbage can immediately in the presence of the plaintiff, it created a loud cracking sound which frightened the plaintiff, which caused her to inhale some of the fumes through her mouth, and thus, proximately caused her to become ill and sick . . .\u201d Plaintiff further alleged that \u201cthe defendant, with full knowledge of the use of said sidewalk as aforesaid by the plaintiff, carelessly, negligently, wrongfully, and unlawfully, and in an unsafe and insecure manner, deposited these tubes or tube in such a manner that they were unsafe, unstable and created a dangerous condition for the plaintiff.\u201d\nPlaintiff testified that she had been across the street and was coming back \u201cand all these boxes and garbage was stacked up higher than your head, and one of those things fell out. It was a light bulb. It was a fluorescent light bulb. It just popped like a gun. I thought I was shot at. I screamed as loud as I could holler and I jumped, and by that time the policeman from across the street was hold of me. He cleaned up the glass. If I hadn\u2019t screamed, I wouldn\u2019t have inhaled it. It went into my stomach.\u201d No one ever put their garbage there except the Jewel Box. \u201cI worked out there every day and saw them pack garbage out there.\u201d\nOn cross-examination plaintiff testified that the garbage was right up in front of her stair steps, just the width of the sidewalk from the entrance. The garbage was all along the edge of the sidewalk. \u201cI certainly did see fluorescent light tubes.\u201d \u201cI didn\u2019t hit the boxes with my arm. I didn\u2019t touch the boxes at all. I am sure of that. The fluorescent tubes were somewhere in those boxes. I don\u2019t know where. They were stuck up there.\u201d \u201cI don\u2019t know how big the tube was. I don\u2019t know which tube fell.\u201d \u201cI just know the tube fell, that\u2019s all I know. It fell from where they were stuck in the boxes or packages or wherever they were.\u201d \u201cI was so sick I didn\u2019t never think of making a chemical analysis of the glass that was broken. ... I just know I got sick from it that night.\u201d \u201cI didn\u2019t count the number of tubes. There usually was one or two every now and then put out. There was always a garbage can right there in front of the steps. I couldn\u2019t tell you. They were somewhere. I don\u2019t know how they were stacked up. I didn\u2019t get down to see how they packed them up.\u201d Plaintiff further testified with respect to her medical expenses and that she had been treated by three doctors as the result of her illness.\nPlaintiff offered no other evidence. Defendant moved for judgment as of nonsuit, which was denied. Defendant offered no evidence but renewed its motion which was denied.\nOttway Burton for plaintiff appellee.\nJordan, Wright, Nichols, Caff rey and Hill, by Karl N. Hill, Jr., for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0429-01",
  "first_page_order": 453,
  "last_page_order": 456
}