{
  "id": 11272320,
  "name": "LEE THOMPSON v. REVOLUTION COTTON MILLS",
  "name_abbreviation": "Thompson v. Revolution Cotton Mills",
  "decision_date": "1911-11-15",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "594",
  "last_page": "596",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "156 N.C. 594"
    }
  ],
  "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": 270,
    "char_count": 4097,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.441,
    "sha256": "dbd3c2112f258bd939df85cf68b6e215f010e67872fd5a2e70cddebbc12969ce",
    "simhash": "1:c860ec0a02c4754c",
    "word_count": 680
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:09:22.906707+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "LEE THOMPSON v. REVOLUTION COTTON MILLS."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Pee OuRrAM.\nIt was chiefly urged for error that tbe court refused to nonsuit plaintiff on motion duly entered, but tbe Court is of opinion tbat tbe motion was properly overruled. On tbe trial it appeared tbat plaintiff, an employee of defendant company, was engaged at tbe time in running a lapper, and in tbe operation of tbe machine tbe cotton would \u201cat times get lumpy\u201d and it would become necessary for plaintiff to put bis band in tbe machine to remove tbe lumps, or it would result in \u201cthin-ended lap.\u201d There was testimony, on part of plaintiff, tending to show tbat tbe boss of tbe lapper-room, who stood towards plaintiff in tbe position of vice principal of defendant company, bad given plaintiff special directions tbat \u201cif anything got in tbe beater box be was to lay tbe belt on tbe loose pulley and stop tbe machine, but if any lumps, etc., got at tbe doors, to remove them without stopping tbe machine. He said you would lose time in stopping tbe belt, tbat you could make a lap while you stopped tbe machine and started up again.\u201d Tbe evidence, further, tended to show tbat this was an unsafe method of doing tbe work; tbat defendant company was guilty of negligence in giving directions of tbe kind indicated, and tbat, on tbe occasion in question, tbe plaintiff, in endeavoring to follow them out, bad bis, hand seriously injured. As tbe Court understands it, tbe testimony of plaintiff tended to show, further, tbat certain wires, placed in tbe machine -with tbe purpose of keeping tbe cotton from becoming lumpy, bad been permitted, by defendant, to \u201cbecome crooked and out of line and in such a negligent condition as to unnecessarily cause tbe cotton therein to become lumpy and thereby rendered tbe machine defective and more dangerous to operate\u201d; and tbat plaintiff bad, several times, given notice of tbe improper condition of the'wires, and tbe employee charged with tbe duty bad failed to have them fixed.\nThere was much evidence on tbe part of defendant company to tbe effect tbat tbe machine was in good condition; tbat no such instruction as claimed by him bad been given plaintiff, but that he had, both by general rul\u00e9s and repeated and special instructions, directed plaintiff never to put his hand in the machine when in motion.\nIn this conflict of evidence, under a fair and comprehensive charge in which the principles of negligence and contributory negligence, as applicable to the facts, were correctly stated, the jury have accepted the plaintiff\u2019s version of the occurrence, and, this being true, an actionable wrong has been established. After careful consideration, the Court finds no reversible error, and the judgment in plaintiff\u2019s favor must be affirmed.\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Pee OuRrAM."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "JS. D. Kuykendall and Sapp & Williams for plaintiff.",
      "King & Kimball and Thomas S. Beall for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "LEE THOMPSON v. REVOLUTION COTTON MILLS.\n(Filed 15 November, 1911.)\nMaster and Servant \u2014 Order of Vice Principal \u2014 Negligence\u2014Contributory Negligence \u2014 Evidence\u2014Questions for Jury.\nPlaintiff! was injured while employed in running a lapper in defendant\u2019s cotton mill, and introduced evidence tending to show that he was instructed by the vice principal of the defendant that if, in operating the machine, the cotton became lumpy, to remove it while the machine was in motion, but to stop the machine for certain other purposes; that there was a certain defect in the machine tending to make the cotton lumpy, and that it was dangerous to carry out this instruction; that the injury was caused while plaintiff was acting as directed. There was evidence to the contrary: Selcl, a motion to nonsuit upon the evidence was properly refused, and under a fair and comprehensive charge in this case upon the principles of negligence and contributory negligence an actionable wrong has been established under the verdict for plaintiff.\nAppeal from 0. H. Allen, J., at August Term, 1911, of Guilford.\nCivil action to recover damages for personal injuries, caused by alleged negligence of defendant.\nThere was verdict for plaintiff. Judgment on tbe verdict, and defendant excepted and appealed.\nJS. D. Kuykendall and Sapp & Williams for plaintiff.\nKing & Kimball and Thomas S. Beall for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0594-01",
  "first_page_order": 634,
  "last_page_order": 636
}