{
  "id": 11272237,
  "name": "THOMAS SETTLE et al. v. SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY and YANDLE BROS., CHARLES YANDLE COMPANY and CHARLES YANDLE",
  "name_abbreviation": "Settle v. Southern Railway Co.",
  "decision_date": "1909-05-19",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "643",
  "last_page": "644",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "150 N.C. 643"
    }
  ],
  "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": "143 N. C., 398",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8657834
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/143/0398-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "111 N. C., 151",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8650820
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/111/0151-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "140 N. C., 235",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 188,
    "char_count": 2715,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.472,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.2391394247309399
    },
    "sha256": "09d372b0655123ab4f0f9d70a4f7e6e6201c1b371f8d0135073be25aaaaca7b9",
    "simhash": "1:f9807aa88a5791dc",
    "word_count": 452
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:55:20.077008+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "THOMAS SETTLE et al. v. SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY and YANDLE BROS., CHARLES YANDLE COMPANY and CHARLES YANDLE."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Brown, J.\nTbis action was originally instituted against the Southern Eailway Company and the above-named defendants, Tandle Bros., Charles Tandle Company and Charles Tandle, contractors, for damages to plaintiff\u2019s\u2019house from blasting operations, conducted by the said contractors in constructing a track for the railway company. The suit was not prosecuted\u2019 against the latter, and judgment was obtained against the contractors. The jury found that the defendants were guilty.of negligence and that the property of plaintiffs had been injured by reason thereof. The only exception is to the refusal of the court to nonsuit the plaintiffs. On such motion the plaintiff\u2019s evidence must be accepted as true, and construed in the light most favorable to him. Millhiser v. Leatherwood, 140 N. C., 235.\nThere is much more than a scintilla of evidence in this case. The plaintiff\u2019s house was injured by concussions and vibrations, which were the result of blasting. Rocks weighing 200 pounds were hurled a great distance and across the French Broad River. No attempt was made to confine the blasts or to smother them. In making the blasts, as much as eight kegs (over two hundred pounds) of powder and twenty sticks of dynamite were used at a time. The evidence is much stronger than the evidence in Blackwell v. Railroad, 111 N. C., 151, and Kimberly v. Howland, 143 N. C., 398.\nWe are not prepared to say. that there is no evidence of negligence sufficient in probative force to be submitted to a jury.\nThe motion to nonsuit was properly overruled.\nNo Error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Brown, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "J. C. Martin, J. H. Merrimon and J. G. Merrimon for plaintiffs.",
      "Wells & Swain for defendants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "THOMAS SETTLE et al. v. SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY and YANDLE BROS., CHARLES YANDLE COMPANY and CHARLES YANDLE.\n(Filed 19 May, 1909.)\n1. Evidence, How Construed \u2014 Nonsuit.\nThe plaintiff\u2019s evidence must be accepted as true and construed in a light most favorable to him, upon an appeal from a motion as of nonsuit upon the evidence.\n2. Negligence \u2014 Evidence\u2014Blasting\u2014Dynamite\u2014Nonsuit\u2014Questions for Jury.\nEvidence of negligence, in an action for damages caused by blasting, is sufficient to be submitted to the jury, and to refuse a motion as of nonsuit upon the evidence, which tends to show that plaintiff\u2019s house was injured by concussions and vibrations resulting from defendant\u2019s blasting, causing 200-pound rocks to be hurled a great distance across a river, and no attempt was made to confine or smother the blasts, in which over two hundred pounds of powder and twenty sticks of dynamite were used at a time.\nActioN tried before Ward, J., and a jury, at September Term, 1908, of Buncombe.\nDefendants appealed.\nJ. C. Martin, J. H. Merrimon and J. G. Merrimon for plaintiffs.\nWells & Swain for defendants.\nWalker, J., did not sit on the hearing of this case."
  },
  "file_name": "0643-01",
  "first_page_order": 687,
  "last_page_order": 688
}