{ "id": 11272035, "name": "J. H. HORNE v. ATLANTIC COAST LINE RAILROAD CO.", "name_abbreviation": "Horne v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad", "decision_date": "1910-10-19", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "239", "last_page": "242", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "153 N.C. 239" } ], "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": "150 N. C., 5", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "119 N. C., 388", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "133 N. C., 54", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8656179 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/133/0054-01" ] }, { "cite": "151 N. C., 352", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8654816 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/151/0352-01" ] }, { "cite": "146 N. C., 511", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11271881 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/146/0511-01" ] }, { "cite": "146 N. C., 592", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11272112 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/146/0592-01" ] }, { "cite": "132 N. C., 865", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8661765 ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/132/0865-01" ] }, { "cite": "129 N. C., 407", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8661120 ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/129/0407-01" ] }, { "cite": "128 N. C., 534", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8661277 ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/128/0534-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 400, "char_count": 6397, "ocr_confidence": 0.463, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.2885606983233257e-07, "percentile": 0.6192671850752689 }, "sha256": "46985cc359352123c70625bcb77e60983c2a9ac0821cfa7c4072ae924635a10a", "simhash": "1:23bb761cb8b28bc3", "word_count": 1110 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:39:54.157289+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Hoke, J., concurs on concurring opinion of Clark, O. J." ], "parties": [ "J. H. HORNE v. ATLANTIC COAST LINE RAILROAD CO." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "BbowN, J.\nTbis case comes before ns upon the sole question as to tbe correctness of his Honor\u2019s ruling in denying the motion to nonsuit. There are no exceptions to evidence and the charge of the court is not sent up.\nFirst. The testimony, taken in its most favorable light for plaintiff, as it must be upon the consideration of a motion to nonsuit, tends to prove these facts.\nPlaintiff was employed by defendant in its yard at Rocky Mount to test and clean airbrakes; that he had no experience in coupling cars; that at the time of the injury he had been sent by his boss to the passenger yard to assist in coupling the locomotives to the passenger trains; that he had no instruction theretofore as to coupling trains and received none then; that he had never seen any of the printed rules; that he had seen cars coupled, but had never coupled one; that he had seen men in coupling cars go between the cars while they were still moving and couple cars and engines nearly every day; that being instructed to couple the engine to No. 49, when the engine began to back, he went up to the side of the car and took hold of the lift lever and walked along by the side of the car, jerking the lift lever two or three times to try to open the knuckle, and it would not work; that thereupon he stepped upon the track to open the knuckle with his hand when his foot caught and he was run over by the engine and lost his leg in consequence; that while in between the ears, he tried to open the knuckle with one hand, and also continued jerking the lift lever with his left hand, but it could not open. The claim of negligence is founded upon the theory that it is the duty of employers to instruct their employees in the use of dangerous machinery before assigning them to such duty. Such obligation is recognized generally by the law writers and courts of the country. Avery v. Company, 146 N. C., 592; Chesson v. Walker, 146 N. C., 511; Craven v. Company, 151 N. C., 352; Marcus v. Loane, 133 N. C., 54; Turner v. Lumber Co., 119 N. C., 388.\nAccording to the plaintiff\u2019s evidence this plain duty was disregarded by defendant\u2019s superintendent. He sent a perfectly \u201cgreen hand\u201d to perform the dangerous duty of coupling cars without instructing him how to do the work required of him. This was negligence. It was a failure to discharge a duty the defendant owed plaintiff.\nSecond. Upon the issue of contributory negligence it is not necessary to consider whether upon the facts the defendant is denied the benefit of a plea of contributory negligence, as the issue was submitted to the jury. Inasmuch as the charge of the court is not sent up and no exceptions taken to it we presume it was unobjectionable to defendant.\nIt is admitted that the engine and car were equipped with automatic couplers, but the plaintiff contends that for some unknown reason the knuckle would not open quickly as it should have done and that he momentarily stepped between the cars to loosen it, when his foot got caught and he was seriously injured so that his leg had to be amputated. Had plaintiff received instructions in car coupling this may not have happened.\nWe are not prepared to say upon this state of facts that the plaintiff\u2019s impulsive act in stepping between the engine and the car momentarily to open the knuckle was per se negligence, considering his lack of instruction and inexperience and the circumstances in which he was placed. Doubtless in submitting this to the jury his Honor properly instructed them and left it to the jury to say whether plaintiff, being uninstrueted and inexperienced went into obvious danger and did what a prudent man similarly circumstanced would not have done.\nThere is evidence of contributory negligence, but it comes from defendant\u2019s witness Radford, assistant foreman, who testifies that he gave plaintiff positive instructions to sign the engineer down before ever going behind a moving engine.\nWe cannot consider evidence of contributory negligence upon a motion to nonsuit unless it is offered by the plaintiff. Strickland v. R. R., 150 N. C., 5.\nNo error.", "type": "majority", "author": "BbowN, J." }, { "text": "Clark, C. J.,\nconcurs on the further ground that the car coupler was a defective appliance and the defenses of \u201cassumption of risk\u201d and \u201ccontributory negligence\u201d are barred by the statute, Revisal, 2636; Coley v. R. R., 128 N. C., 534; s. c., 129 N. C., 407; Elmore v. R. R., 132 N. C., 865. The facts in the last case are identical with those in this. To same effect is U. S. Stat., 1908, c. 149, sec. 3.\nHoke, J., concurs on concurring opinion of Clark, O. J.", "type": "concurrence", "author": "Clark, C. J.," } ], "attorneys": [ "J. A. Wellons, Aycoclc & Winston for plaintiff.", "Abell & Ward for defendant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "J. H. HORNE v. ATLANTIC COAST LINE RAILROAD CO.\n(Filed 19 October, 1910.)\n1. Nonsuit \u2014 Evidence\u2014How Considered.\nUpon a motion to nonsuit upon the evidence, the testimony must be considered in its most favorable light to the plaintiff.\n2. Master and Servant \u2014 \u201cGreen Hand\u201d \u2014 Duty to Instruct \u2014 Negligence.\nA railroad company owes the duty to instruct a perfectly green and totally inexperienced hand employed to couple cars, and its failure to do so is actionable negligence for consequent injury inflicted on him.\n4. Master and Servant \u2014 \u201cGreen Hand\u201d \u2014 Coupling Cars \u2014 Duty to Instruct \u2014 Contributory Negligence.\nThe act of a \u201cgreen\u201d and totally inexperienced hand employed to couple cars, etc., without instruction from the railroad company, in stepping momentarily between the moving engine and a car to couple them by opening the knuckle of the coupling, which for some unexplained reason would not work, does not constitute negligence per se on his part. Under the circumstances in evidence the question was properly submitted to the jury.\n5. Nonsuit \u2014 Contributory Negligence \u2014 Defendant's Evidence \u2014 How Considered.\nUpon a motion to nonsuit upon the evidence, the testimony relating to plaintiff\u2019s contributory negligence introduced by the defendant will not be considered.\nAppeal from O. H. Allen, J., at the March Term, 1910, of J OHNSTON.\n1. \"Was the plaintiff, J. H. Horne, injured by the negligence of the defendant, as alleged in the complaint ? Answer: Yes.\n2. Did the plaintiff, J. H. Horne, by his own negligence, contribute to his injury, as alleged in the answer? Answer: No.\n3. What damage, if any, has the plaintiff sustained ? Answer: $5,000.\nMotion by defendant to set aside the verdict; motion denied.\nFrom the judgment rendered the defendant appealed.\nJ. A. Wellons, Aycoclc & Winston for plaintiff.\nAbell & Ward for defendant." }, "file_name": "0239-01", "first_page_order": 287, "last_page_order": 290 }