{
  "id": 8658213,
  "name": "SARAH OWENS v. SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Owens v. Southern Railway Co.",
  "decision_date": "1898-11-01",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "183",
  "last_page": "184",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "123 N.C. 183"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C.",
    "id": 9292,
    "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "33 Kan., 145",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Kan.",
      "case_ids": [
        8859417
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/kan/33/0145-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "22 Wis. 468",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Wis.",
      "case_ids": [
        8709195
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/wis/22/0468-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "6 Johns N. Y., 68",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Johns.",
      "case_ids": [
        2132735
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/johns/6/0068-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "31 N. Y., 181",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.Y.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 226,
    "char_count": 2903,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.497,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.6878050882405307e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6985913078330049
    },
    "sha256": "1d9440e3b053ee18f2ae356993f564eef768037a2375ce3ac4b38abf2dbc36b6",
    "simhash": "1:1fbeb5ee94952168",
    "word_count": 523
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:57:12.442116+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "SARAH OWENS v. SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Clark, J.:\nAny juror may dissent from a verdict, to which he has agreed in the jury room, at any time before it is received and entered up, and this is true even of a sealed verdict. Weeks v. Hart, 31 N. Y., 181; Root v. Sherwood, 6 Johns N. Y., 68; Rathbaner v. State, 22 Wis. 468; Bishop v. Mugler, 33 Kan., 145; 2 Thomp. Trials, Section 2635.\nIn the present case, the verdict was rendered as to the second issue (contributory negligence) \u201cNo.\u201d Before it was entered and before the jury was discharged, the Court, at the request of defendant permitted them to be polled; whereupon one of the jurors responded to the second, issue, \u201c1 think she (plaintiff) was to blame in part.\u201d This was certainly not a response of \u201cNo.\u201d He was then asked if he had not consented in the jury room that the issue might be answered \u201cNo.\u201d To this he replied \u201cI did.\u201d\nIt was error to permit the verdict to be received after the juror\u2019s dissent, in part at least, without ascertaining whether notwithstanding he adhered still to the assent given in the jury room. The force of this would be better seen if each of the jurors on being polled had responded as this juror did. On a poll of the jury each \u201ctub stands on its own bottom,\u201d and the dissent of one is as fatal as that of all. Unanimity in the verdict of a jury is still required in this State, though abolished in some other jurisdictions, aud the judge should have directed the jury to retire and consider further of their verdict. For the. reception of the verdict under these circumstances over the objection of the defendant, there must be a new trial.\nNew trial.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Clark, J.:"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Mr. F. II. B-usbee, for defendant (appellant).",
      "Messrs. C. M. Steelman and L. M. Scott, for plaintiff."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "SARAH OWENS v. SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY.\n(Decided November 1, 1898).\nVerdict of Jury \u2014 Poll of the Jury.\nOn a poll of the jury, the dissent of one is as fatal as that of all.\nCivil action for damages for personal- injury tried before Robinson, J., and a jury at June Term, 1898, of Guilford Superior Court.\nPlaintiff offered evidence tending to prove that she was a passenger, on defendant\u2019s train, and that while alighting at High Point from the platform, the train gave a sudden jerk, and she fell and was badly hurt.'\nThe answer alleged contributory negligence, and defendant offered evidence tending to\u2019prove it.\nThe jury responded \u201cNo\u201d to the issue, as to whether the plaintiff by her negligence had contributed to her injury. Upon a poll of the jury, taken by leave of the Court upon this issue, one of the jury answered \u201cI think she ivas in bicorne in part.\u201d The juror was then asked \u2014 -\u2018Did you not consent in the jury-room that the answer to this issue should be lNo\\ He replied, I did.\nThe verdict was then received and recorded, and the jury separated \u2014 to which the defendant objected and the objection being overruled, excepted.\nJudgment for the plaintiff and appeal by defendant.\nMr. F. II. B-usbee, for defendant (appellant).\nMessrs. C. M. Steelman and L. M. Scott, for plaintiff."
  },
  "file_name": "0183-01",
  "first_page_order": 209,
  "last_page_order": 210
}