{
  "id": 8657485,
  "name": "GUS HAMMETT v. SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Hammett v. Southern Railway Co.",
  "decision_date": "1911-12-13",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "322",
  "last_page": "324",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "157 N.C. 322"
    }
  ],
  "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": "120 N. C., 514",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8659172
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/120/0514-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "122 N. C., 832",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8662530
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/122/0832-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "141 N. C., 245",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11252692
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/141/0245-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 250,
    "char_count": 3490,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.437,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 9.259135056377254e-08,
      "percentile": 0.5113929422140056
    },
    "sha256": "59afa903556cd5a8765b173de4256042f8d29d0bf5b22b3fb145e41276c60ff1",
    "simhash": "1:764634409a3d3c4e",
    "word_count": 620
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:57:03.195282+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "GUS HAMMETT v. SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "BROWN, J.\nThe following r\u00e9sum\u00e9 of plaintiff\u2019s evidence is taken from the brief of the counsel for defendant: \u201cThe plaintiff testified that he was working at a tannery, some distance south of the public bridg\u00e9 across the French Broad River which leads from Asheville to West Asheville, where plaintiff lived; that the tannery was in Asheville, and on the morning of the injury he came from West Asheville to Asheville, crossed the public bridge, and walked along a street to the railroad, and then started and walked south along the railroad, between the tracks, until he was stricken by the engine.' He testified that there was a path along on the right-hand side of the railroad track, in which he was walking, about 2 feet from the end of the crossties, and that many people walked that way; that there were several tracks there, and he was going along the way he usually went, when a switch engine struck him and drug him from 15 to 20 feet; that the engine was going backwards, and that it was the tender that struck him; that the end that struck him had no light on it; that the train was not running fast; that it knocked him down, and the engine ran 2 or 3 feet after they shut the steam off; that the accident happened 20 minutes past 6 in the morning.\u201d\nThe evidence further tends to prove that it was very dark and cold and a strong wind blowing; that the pathway had not been used by the public for ten years, to defendant\u2019s knowledge.\nIt is unnecessary to quote further from the evidence. It is possible that the plaintiff\u2019s injury may have resulted from his own negligence in walking too near the track or attempting to cross it without looking and listening, but this is not so apparent from the evidence that it must be inferred as matter of law.\nWe have said repeatedly that it is negligence to back an engine or train in the dark without a light on the tender or on the forward car. It may be there was a light on the end of the tender, but plaintiff testifies there was none. Had there been a light, it might have given timely notice of the approach of the tender and engine and thus warned and saved the plaintiff. We think the case comes within the principles laid down in Heavener v. R. R., 141 N. C., 245; Purnell v. R. R., 122 N. C., 832; Stanley v. R. R., 120 N. C., 514.\nThe judgment of nonsuit is set aside.\nNew trial.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "BROWN, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Craig, Martin & Thomason for plaintiff.",
      "Moore & Rollins and Julius 0. Martin for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "GUS HAMMETT v. SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY.\n(Filed 13 December, 1911.)\nRailroads \u2014 Negligence\u2014Personal Injury \u2014 Light or Warnings \u2014 Contributory Negligence \u2014 Evidence\u2014Nonsuit.\nEvidence tending to show that plaintiff was injured on a dark and cold night with a strong wind biowing, as he was walking along a path by the railroad track, about 2 leet from the end of the crossties, by being struck by defendant\u2019s switch engine running backward without lights or other warnings of its approach, is sufficient upon the question of defendant\u2019s negligence, and while it may be possible in this case that the plaintiff was himself negligent in walking too near the track or attempting to cross it without looking and listening, contributory negligence cannot be inferred as a matter of law, and a motion to nonsuit upon the evidence should not be sustained.\nAppeal from Lane, J., at July Term, 1911, of Buitcombe.\nCivil action for damages for personal injury.\nAt conclusion of the plaintiff\u2019s evidence bis Honor sustained motion to nonsuit, and plaintiff appealed.\nCraig, Martin & Thomason for plaintiff.\nMoore & Rollins and Julius 0. Martin for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0322-01",
  "first_page_order": 362,
  "last_page_order": 364
}