{
  "id": 11272695,
  "name": "J. DAN FREE v. THE CHAMPION FIBER COMPANY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Free v. Champion Fiber Co.",
  "decision_date": "1909-05-21",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "736",
  "last_page": "737",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "150 N.C. 736"
    }
  ],
  "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": "138 N. C., 410",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11269572
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/138/0410-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "141 N. C., 80",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11252108
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/141/0080-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "138 N. C., 410",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11269572
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/138/0410-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 192,
    "char_count": 2251,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.464,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.5046715916883656e-08,
      "percentile": 0.2825170502218469
    },
    "sha256": "c19a564a7e0629c4492a08bae6369386e34cd26d3ff8b1b920f701df62437045",
    "simhash": "1:9d526df29e6eb604",
    "word_count": 372
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:55:20.077008+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "J. DAN FREE v. THE CHAMPION FIBER COMPANY."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nIn this case there was plenary evidence, on the part of plaintiff, tending to show that he was an employee of defendant company, engaged at the time in the pr\u00aboper performance of his duties, and was injured by reason of a defective equipment or appliance, disclosing a breach of duty on the part of defendant company, and that plaintiff himself was free from blame in the matter. \u2019 The jury, under correct charge, have accepted the plaintiff\u2019s version of the occurrence, and, under numerous decisions of this Court, plaintiff\u2019s right of action is established. Fearington v. Tobacco Co., 141 N. C., 80; Pressly v. Yarn Mills, 138 N. C., 410.\nThe case, in many respects, is not unlike the one last cited, Pressly\u2019s case, supra. It would serve no good purpose to write a minute and extended description of the machine and the defective appliance which caused plaintiff\u2019s injury, and we think it sufficient to say that we have carefully examined and considered the facts appearing in the record, and are of opinion that no error in the trial to defendant\u2019s, prejudice was committed. The judgment below is therefore affirmed.\nNo Error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "W. B. Ferguson, J. W. Ferguson and Frank Carter for plaintiff.",
      "Smathers & Morgan for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "J. DAN FREE v. THE CHAMPION FIBER COMPANY.\n(Filed 21 May, 1909.)\nMaster and Servant \u2014 Safe Appliances.\nThere being plenary evidence that plaintiff was free from blame and was injured in the course of his employment by defendant\u2019s negligence in furnishing him with a defective equipment or appliance with which to work, the verdict awarding dam- \u2022 ages to plaintiff, under a \u2018correct charge, was a proper one. (Pr\u00e9s\u00f1y v. Yarn Mills, 138 N. C., 410, cited and approved.)\nActioN tried before Gui\u00f3n, J., and a jury, at February Term, 1908, of Haywood.\nOn issues submitted the jury, rendered the following verdict:\n1. \u201cWas plaintiff injured by the negligence of the defendant?\u201d Answer: \u201cYes.\u201d\n2. \u201cDid plaintiff, by Ms own negligence, contribute to his injury?\u201d Answer: \u201cNo.\u201d\n3. \u201cDid plaintiff voluntarily assume the risk?\u201d Answer: \u201cNo.\u201d\n4. \u201cWhat damages, if any, is plaintiff entitled to recover?\u201d Answer: \u201cThree hundred dollars.\u201d\nThere was judgment on the verdict for plaintiff, and defendant excepted and appealed.\nW. B. Ferguson, J. W. Ferguson and Frank Carter for plaintiff.\nSmathers & Morgan for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0736-01",
  "first_page_order": 780,
  "last_page_order": 781
}