{
  "id": 8658940,
  "name": "H. W. WHITENER v. C. C. AND O. RAILROAD COMPANY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Whitener v. C. C. & O. Railroad",
  "decision_date": "1911-12-13",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "564",
  "last_page": "564",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "157 N.C. 564"
    }
  ],
  "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": "128 N. C., 264",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8659695
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/128/0264-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "151 N. C., 313",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8654689
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/151/0313-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "152 N. C., 397",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11271510
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/152/0397-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 114,
    "char_count": 1142,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.488,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.207679482471758
    },
    "sha256": "2f1e0c5a3c45242c7f984ebc6f0415fb73585aa23d6055befa83ee33bb782fba",
    "simhash": "1:d841f792a40e76b1",
    "word_count": 194
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:57:03.195282+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "H. W. WHITENER v. C. C. AND O. RAILROAD COMPANY."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Pee Cueiam.\nUpon a review of the record in this case we are of opinion that his Honor correctly sustained the motion to nonsuit. House v. R. R., 152 N. C., 397, and cases cited; Dunn v. R. R., 151 N. C., 313. The injury was evidently the result of an accident, which the evidence fails to account for. Martin v. Manufacturing Co., 128 N. C., 264.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Pee Cueiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Pless <& Wihborne for plaintiff.",
      "Hudgings & Watson, A. Hall Johnston, and J. Norment Powell for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "H. W. WHITENER v. C. C. AND O. RAILROAD COMPANY.\n(Filed 13 December, 1911.)\nNegligence \u2014 Action\u2014Evidence\u2014Nonsuit.\nWhen it appears that an injury, tbe subject of an action for damages, was tbe result of an accident concerning wbicb tbe evidence fails to account, a judgment of nonsuit is proper.\nAppeal from Long, J., at July Term, 1911, of MoDowell.\nCivil action for personal injury. The action' was brought to recover damages for personal injury received from a piece of rock striking plaintiff in the eye while driving crushed ballast under the railroad ties with a tamping pick.\nHis Honor sustained defendant\u2019s motion to nonsuit and dismissed the action. Plaintiff appealed.\nPless <& Wihborne for plaintiff.\nHudgings & Watson, A. Hall Johnston, and J. Norment Powell for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0564-01",
  "first_page_order": 604,
  "last_page_order": 604
}