{
  "id": 11272157,
  "name": "W. D. BAILEY v. THE MEADOWS COMPANY and CAROLINA, CLINCHFIELD AND OHIO RAILWAY COMPANY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Bailey v. Meadows Co.",
  "decision_date": "1910-05-17",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "603",
  "last_page": "604",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "152 N.C. 603"
    }
  ],
  "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., 516",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11269840
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/138/0516-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 156,
    "char_count": 1790,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.433,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.770845263994211e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4140407413714081
    },
    "sha256": "fa87b52c12c9f743fd9487670166635922682bc5e2395d1a1f57dea6ab1ad35a",
    "simhash": "1:d8ed453e884c09a0",
    "word_count": 294
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:29:47.463636+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "W. D. BAILEY v. THE MEADOWS COMPANY and CAROLINA, CLINCHFIELD AND OHIO RAILWAY COMPANY."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Brown, J.\nTaking the plaintiff\u2019s evidence in the most favorable view for him, we are of opinion that the motion to nonsuit should have been sustained. The plaintiff was working on the construction force engaged in building a railroad. The railroad was not in operation, as the rails were then being laid. Plaintiff and two fellow-servants were engaged in loading rails on a cai\u2018 by order of a foreman. Plaintiff states that, \u201cWe had our hands under the rail and they were so close that they dropped the rail on my hand before I could get it out.\u201d It is plain from plaintiff\u2019s own evidence that his injury was caused by the negligence of his fellow-servants, or else that it was the result of an unavoidable accident. In neither event would defendants be liable.\nAs the road was being constructed' and not'Operated, the principles laid down in Nicholson v. R. R., 138 N. C., 516, and reiterated at this term in O\u2019Neal v. R. R., ante 404, bar a recovery. The motion to'nonsuit is sustained.\nReversed..",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Brown, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Pless & Winborne for plaintiff.",
      "Hudgins, Watson & Johnston for defendants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "W. D. BAILEY v. THE MEADOWS COMPANY and CAROLINA, CLINCHFIELD AND OHIO RAILWAY COMPANY.\n(Filed 17 May, 1910.)\nRailroads \u2014 Construction\u2014Personal Injury \u2014 Fellow-servant \u2014 Non-suit.\nIt appearing in this ease from the evidence that plaintiff \u25a0 was employed loading rails for the construction of a railroad not in operation, and was injured either by the negligence of a fellow-servant or the result of an undvoidable accident, a motion to nonsuit upon the evidence should have been sustained.\nAppeal from James L. Webb, J., at February Term, 1910, of McDowell.\nThe usual issues of negligence, contributory negligence and damage' were submitted. There was a verdict and judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appealed.\nPless & Winborne for plaintiff.\nHudgins, Watson & Johnston for defendants."
  },
  "file_name": "0603-01",
  "first_page_order": 651,
  "last_page_order": 652
}