{
  "id": 11269951,
  "name": "H. H. BECK, Administrator, v. SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Beck v. Southern Railway Co.",
  "decision_date": "1908-11-19",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "168",
  "last_page": "168",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "149 N.C. 168"
    }
  ],
  "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": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 143,
    "char_count": 1557,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.414,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 9.473997644649193e-08,
      "percentile": 0.5178162896755757
    },
    "sha256": "1bf53e54db3e98e0ecf681d53216209a04090e12ad59575fd5ea7ceda9591ce1",
    "simhash": "1:6b5b6fb9d6190d83",
    "word_count": 261
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:20:43.519867+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "H. H. BECK, Administrator, v. SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Pee Ouexam:\nWhen this case was before this Court at the last term the judgment of nonsuit was set aside, and a new trial was ordered.\nOn this second trial the evidence relating to the conduct of the intestate as bearing upon the issue of contributory negligence is much clearer and stronger.\nIt now appears not only from the evidence offered by the defendant, but also plainly from the evidence of the plaintiffj that the deceased by walking from seventy to nine ty feet could easily have walked around the train of cars and that h\u00bf had a perfectly safe xvay to reach his home instead of climbing between the two cars chained together on the live track in constant use. Upon all the evidence as presented on the seeond trial we are of opinion that the deceased was guilty of contributory negligence, and that the motion to nonsuit should have been granted.\nIt is so ordered.\nReversed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Pee Ouexam:"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "R. Lee Wright and P. 8. Garit\u00f3n for plaintiff.",
      "Linn & Linn for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "H. H. BECK, Administrator, v. SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY.\n(Filed 19 November, 1908).\nContributory Negligence \u2014 Evidence Conclusive.\nWhen it appears that plaintiff\u2019s intestate was injured by attempting to go between two cars of defendant\u2019s train, chained together on a live track in constant use, and that he could easily have walked around tire train by going from seventy to ninety feet and have avoided the-injury, his act constitutes contributory negligence which bars recovery by his administrator.\nAotioN tried before Counoill, J., and a jury, February Term, 1908, of RowaN. Defendant appealed.\nR. Lee Wright and P. 8. Garit\u00f3n for plaintiff.\nLinn & Linn for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0168-01",
  "first_page_order": 202,
  "last_page_order": 202
}