{
  "id": 8652068,
  "name": "O. L. HOLLAR v. SOUTHERN BELL TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Hollar v. Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co.",
  "decision_date": "1911-05-07",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "229",
  "last_page": "230",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "155 N.C. 229"
    }
  ],
  "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": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 194,
    "char_count": 2694,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.476,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 7.715676293513575e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4539469289522285
    },
    "sha256": "b65570d6860db0fa28fac2b546c40c071a2e6e5ab3a8eb5eca99cb82983ffd92",
    "simhash": "1:9848ed1922ee5c0a",
    "word_count": 458
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:21:07.457528+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "O. L. HOLLAR v. SOUTHERN BELL TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Pee Cubtam.\nThe record presents only-two assignments of error.\n1. A witness, Linto Lyon, former manager for defendant, was permitted to testify that in August preceding tbe burning of the house on 13 November, a large kerosene lamp was used by the defendant on a bracket shelf on the wall, close to a low pine ceiling; that it made the wall dangerously hot, and that he had instructed the operators not to use it there, but place it on the table.\n\u00a5e think this evidence was competent upon the first issue to prove negligence and to fix defendant with knowledge of the careless manner in which the lamp was used by its employees.\n2. The other assignment of error is as to refusal to allow motion to nonsuit upon the ground that there is no sufficient evidence of the origin of the fire. While the proof is not direct and positive that the fire originated from the negligent placing of the lamp on the shelf and so close that it set the ceiling and wall on fire, yet there is circumstantial proof of that fact of sufficient probative force to fully justify the judge in submitting the question to the jury.\nNo Error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Pee Cubtam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "J. H. Burlce and L. C. Caldwell for plaintiff.",
      "W. D. Turner for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "O. L. HOLLAR v. SOUTHERN BELL TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY.\n(Filed 7 May, 1911.)\n1. Negligent Burning \u2014 Master and Servant \u2014 Notice \u2014 Dangerous Conditions \u2014 Respondeat Superior.\nThe defendant telephone company occupied plaintiff's house as a tenant, and while thus occupied it caught fire and burned on 13 November. In an action for damages for the loss alleged through defendant\u2019s negligence, it was competent, upon the issue of negligence and to fix defendant with the knowledge of the careless manner in which the lamp was used by its employees occupying the house, for the plaintiff to show by defendant\u2019s ex-manager that in August preceding they used the lamp on a bracket shelf close to a low pine ceiling, dangerous as to fire, and that the witness had told the employees not to do so.\n2. Negligence \u2014 Evidence Circumstantial \u2014 Nonsuit.\nEvidence in this ease of a circumstantial character held sufficient upon motion to nonsuit.\nAppeal from Long, J., at the February Term, 1911, of ALEXANDER.\nCivil action, brought by plaintiff to recover damages from defendant for negligently setting fire to and burning the house of plaintiff, which was occupied by defendant as a tenant.\nThese issues were submitted:\n1. \"Was the plaintiff\u2019s building destroyed by fire by the negligence of the defendant, as alleged in the complaint? Answer: Yes.\n2. What damage, if any, is the plaintiff entitled to recover of the defendant ? Answer: One thousand dollars.\nFrom the judgment rendered the defendant appealed.\nJ. H. Burlce and L. C. Caldwell for plaintiff.\nW. D. Turner for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0229-01",
  "first_page_order": 265,
  "last_page_order": 266
}