{
  "id": 8654050,
  "name": "N. B. FINCH v. ATLANTIC COAST LINE RAILROAD COMPANY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Finch v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad",
  "decision_date": "1909-10-06",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "105",
  "last_page": "106",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "151 N.C. 105"
    }
  ],
  "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": "124 N. C., 126",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "148 N. C., 405",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "143 N. C., 260",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8657040
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/143/0260-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "137 N. C., 136",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8655897
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/137/0136-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "20 L. R. A., 531",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "L.R.A.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 317,
    "char_count": 4310,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.466,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.5522964274278852e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6753322297940922
    },
    "sha256": "03e30d8b5ce86cd675779b725cca55ec4b206cb6605a801d55808c7cb1d8c4fb",
    "simhash": "1:b25d5623fb1afbe5",
    "word_count": 768
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:30:26.349792+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "N. B. FINCH v. ATLANTIC COAST LINE RAILROAD COMPANY."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Brown, J.\nThe only controversy in this appeal arises upon the refusal of his Honor to allow the motion to nonsuit, and in so ruling we are of opinion he did not err. The evidence tends to prove that the plaintiff was a merchant and cotton buyer of Springhope, in which town the defendant had, on its right of way, near its station house, a large platform, upon which it was required that cotton bales should be placed before bills of lading would be issued for the same. It was also required or requested by the defendant that the bales should be \u201cheaded up,\u201d put in an upright position, with the marked ends up. This platform was kept' up by the defendant to receive- cotton intended for shipment over its road, and, as its agent testified, it was required that cotton be placed on the platform before bills of lading would be issued for it, and headed up so the marks could be seen and taken down by the agent. On the occasion in question the plaintiff purchased in the streets a bale of cotton from a farmer, and he threw it out of his cart on said platform, according to the usual custom. The-bale was lying down flat and covered a hole in the platform seven or eight inches wide and two or three feet long, a decayed piece of plank having broken out there. The plaintiff, with the assistance of the farmer, was engaged in putting the bale in an upright position, in order to meet the requirement of the defendant and intending to have it shipped by the defendant, when his left leg went down in the hole and the bale fell on his right leg and he was serio.usly injured. The defense of contributory negligence is not set up in the answer.\nUpon these facts we think the defendant is plainly liable, upon well-settled principles. Dowd v. Railroad, 20 L. R. A., 531, and cases cited; 16 Am. & Eng. (1st Ed.), 413, 415; 21 Am. & Eng. (2d Ed.), 417, note 2; 2 Jaggard on Torts, 895, 896. At the time plaintiff was injured he was not a bare licensee, as in Quantz v. Railroad, 137 N. C., 136, or Peterson cases, 143 N. C., 260, but the inducement to deposit his cotton on the platform was equivalent to an invitation to do so. Briscoe v. Light Co., 148 N. C., 405. At the time he was injured plaintiff ivas engaged in obeying the instructions of defendant\u2019s agent to head up the bale so the mark could be taken down by him and bill of lading issued. Plaintiff was really transacting business with the company, as he was delivering the bale on the platform kept by defendant for the purpose of receiving it for shipment.\nThe defendant owed a duty to its patrons so engaged to keep the platform in repair. Phillips v. Railroad, 124 N. C., 126; 1 Fetter on Carriers, sec. 228. The judgment is Affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Brown, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Jacob Battle for plaintiff.",
      "Bunn & Spruill for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "N. B. FINCH v. ATLANTIC COAST LINE RAILROAD COMPANY.\n(Filed 6 October, 1909.)\n1. Railroads \u2014 Shipper\u2014Cotton\u2014Licensee.\nOne who is preparing bales of cotton for shipment in a customary manner on the platform provided by a railroad company for the purpose is nof a bar.e licensee.\n2. Railroads \u2014 Cotton Platform \u2014 Repairs\u2014Duty to Shippers \u2014 Negligence \u2014 Questions for Jury.\nA railroad company owes a duty to its patrons shipping bales of cotton over its lines to keep in repair its platform used and furnished by -it for that purpose, and when there is evidence tending to show that one thus shipping cotton, while complying with the instructions of defendant\u2019s agent in heading up the bales so that their marking could readily be seen, was injured by his foot catching in a hole in the platform left by a rotting plank, which was concealed by the bale he was then handling, it is sufficient to take the case to the jury upon the issue of defendant\u2019s negligence. In this case the question of contributory negligence was not presented.\nAppeal from 0. II. Allen, J., March Term, 1909, of Nash.\nCivil action, to recover damages-for an injury sustained by plaintiff from falling in a bole in defendant\u2019s cotton platform at Springbope.\nThese issues were submitted to the jury:\n1. \u201cWas plaintiff injured by the negligence of defendant?\u201d Answer: \u201cYes.\u201d\n2. \u201cWhat damage is plaintiff entitled to recover?\u201d Answer: \u201cTwo thousand five hundred dollars.\u201d\nFrom the judgment rendered the defendant appealed.\nThe facts are sufficiently stated -in the opinion of the Court.\nJacob Battle for plaintiff.\nBunn & Spruill for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0105-01",
  "first_page_order": 149,
  "last_page_order": 150
}