{
  "id": 11269710,
  "name": "ROSE STYRON v. ATLANTIC AND NORTH CAROLINA RAILWAY COMPANY and the TOWN OF MOREHEAD CITY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Styron v. Atlantic & North Carolina Railway Co.",
  "decision_date": "1912-12-14",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "78",
  "last_page": "80",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "161 N.C. 78"
    }
  ],
  "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": "140 N. C., 112",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "116 N. C., 720",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8655494
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/116/0720-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "90 N. C., 431",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8696510
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/90/0431-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 319,
    "char_count": 5344,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.45,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.026754263579386e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3734866395685617
    },
    "sha256": "3f1f48fde63952abda79eeff947de3ea14ffffcef53b6a97df1fdedef63fbbfd",
    "simhash": "1:7a25d2e4f54d8abe",
    "word_count": 926
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:55:28.078438+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "ROSE STYRON v. ATLANTIC AND NORTH CAROLINA RAILWAY COMPANY and the TOWN OF MOREHEAD CITY."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "THE DEFENDANT MOREHEAD CITY\u2019S APPEAL.\nBrown, J.\nTbe plaintiff excepted and appealed because bis Honor sustained tbe motion to nonsuit as to tbe defendant railroad company. Tbis appeal bas been heretofore disposed of early in tbe present term, and tbe judgment of tbe Superior Court affirmed.\nTbe defendant Morebead City appeals, and tbe substance of its contentions is tbat in no view of tbe evidence is it liable to tbe plaintiff.\nTbe defendant\u2019s officers evidently tbougbt tbe town was liable, for shortly after plaintiff was injured they procured ber to execute a release in these words: \u201cIn consideration of $25, I hereby release tbe town of Morebead City from all liability, etc.\u201d\nTbe plaintiff testified tbat she is ignorant and cannot read and write; tbat tbe release was not read over to ber; tbat tbe officials told ber she bad no claim against tbe town, and tbat she made ber mark; tbat $16 of the $25 was paid tbe doctor, and she received only $6 in cash; and tbat tbe $2 went to pay some money tbat bad been loaned ber.\nTbe defendant city offered evidence in contradiction.\nTbe assignments of error raise no questions of evidence, and we think tbe matter was properly left to tbe jury by tbe court.\nUpon tbe question of tbe liability of tbe defendant city for negligence, we think tbe motion to nonsuit was properly denied.\nTbe plaintiff offered evidence tending to prove that she was injured crossing a ditch on a public street of defendant. This ditch was opened many years ago by tbe railroad company from its right of way to tbe sound, by permission of defendant. Tbe evidence further shows that a street crossed this ditch and that defendant city maintained a bridge across it; that tbe street and bridge have been in general use twenty years; that the street was opened up by the city and is called Evans Street, and has been worked by tbe city for twenty-one or twenty-two years.\nThere is testimony tending to prove that tbe city kept up this bridge and that at time plaintiff was injured it consisted of \u201cnothing more than a little bridge, an 8-foot plank\u201d; that there was no railing to. it, and no lights nearer than 100 yards, and that the bridge was used generally by people to walk across for more than ten years.\nPlaintiff testifies she attempted to cross this bridge after sundown in October, 1909, when the plank threw her into the ditch and crippled her; that there was no railing nor lights and nothing to keep her from falling into the ditch.\nIn our opinion, the evidence of negligence was amply sufficient to justify his Honor in submitting the issue to the jury. Bunch v. Edenton, 90 N. C., 431; Russell v. Monroe, 116 N. C., 720; Fitzgerald v. Concord, 140 N. C., 112.\nThe defendant Morehead City will pay all the costs.\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Brown, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Abernethy & Davis for plaintiff.",
      "F. H. G-orham, Charles R. Thomas for defendant Morehead Qity.",
      ". J. F. Duncan and L. I. Moore for A. and N. G. Railroad Company."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "ROSE STYRON v. ATLANTIC AND NORTH CAROLINA RAILWAY COMPANY and the TOWN OF MOREHEAD CITY.\n(Filed 14 December, 1912.)\n1. Cities and Towns \u2014 Streets and Sidewalks \u2014 Negligence\u2014Evidence \u2014Questions for Jury.\nIn an action against a city for damages for a personal injury alleged to bave been negligently inflicted, there was evidence tending to show that a city\u2019s street crossed a ditch which had long since been dug by a railroad company from- its right of way and lc\u00e9pt open, with the permission of the city, for a number of years; that the city had maintained a bridge over this ditch, but had permitted it to become in disrepair, which, at the time complained of, was not more than an 8-foot plank without railing and no lights nearer than 100 yards, and had been generally used by people to walk across for more than ten years; that plaintiff, while attempting to cross after sundown, was thrown by the plank into the ditch and injured: Held, that a motion to nonsuit should not be granted.\n2. Cities and Towns \u2014 Negligence \u2014 Release \u2014 Fraud\u2014Instructions for Jury.\nA release made by an ignorant and illiterate person of all demand against a city on account of a personal injury alleged to have been negligent!}' inflicted by it, which was not read over to the injured party, who was told by the city officials she had no claim against the city, whereupon she made her mark on the release, the consideration therefor appearing to be inadequate, is sufficient evidence of fraud in its procurement to be submitted to the jury.\nAppeal by defendant from Foushee, J., at March Term, 1912, of \u00dcARTERET.\nCivil action. At the conclusion of the evidence the court sustained a motion to nonsuit the plaintiff as to the defendant, the railroad company. Plaintiff excepted. The court overruled the motion to nonsuit made by defendant town of Morehead City, and submitted these issues to the jury. The defendant More-head City excepted.\n1. Was the release set out in this answer of the defendant town secured by undue influence and fraud, as alleged? Answer: Yes.\n2. Was tbe plaintiff injured by tbe negligence of tbe defendant town, as alleged? Answer: Yes.\n3. Was plaintiff guilty of contributory negligence, as alleged? Answer: No. ' ,\n4. Wbat damages, if any, bas tbe plaintiff sustained by reason of tbe alleged negligence ? Answer: $325.\nFrom tbe judgment rendered, both tbe plaintiff and tbe defendant Morebead City appealed.\nAbernethy & Davis for plaintiff.\nF. H. G-orham, Charles R. Thomas for defendant Morehead Qity.\n. J. F. Duncan and L. I. Moore for A. and N. G. Railroad Company."
  },
  "file_name": "0078-01",
  "first_page_order": 122,
  "last_page_order": 124
}