{ "id": 8656216, "name": "W. M. PRUETT v. SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY", "name_abbreviation": "Pruett v. Southern Railway Co.", "decision_date": "1913-11-26", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "3", "last_page": "5", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "164 N.C. 3" } ], "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": "121 S. W., 362", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "65 S. E., 950", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "88 S. C., 15", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "S.C.", "case_ids": [ 1935144 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/sc/88/0015-01" ] }, { "cite": "121 S. W., 419", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "32 L. R. A., 167", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L.R.A.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "113 App. Div., 440", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "A.D.", "case_ids": [ 5237380 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ad/113/0440-01" ] }, { "cite": "99 N. Y. S., 281", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.Y.S.", "case_ids": [ 7663490 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nys/99/0281-01" ] }, { "cite": "88 N. C., 536", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8683345 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/88/0536-01" ] }, { "cite": "153 N. C., 296", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11272274 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/153/0296-01" ] }, { "cite": "76 N. C., 322", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "opinion_index": 0 } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 351, "char_count": 4924, "ocr_confidence": 0.462, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.462084827780793e-07, "percentile": 0.6575329295260071 }, "sha256": "5915aff870f859c65faa6c60561df9ad2b7c047c6b69a913af46b58e8daab5e2", "simhash": "1:763d237c97991fc2", "word_count": 870 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:20:25.630766+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "W. M. PRUETT v. SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Bbown, J.\nTbe evidence seems to be undisputed, and all of it tends to prove tbat on 12 August, 1911, tbe plaintiff was a passenger on tbe defendant\u2019s train and occupied tbe rear seat in tbe smoking compartment.\nThere were two other seats on that side in front of tbe plaintiff\u2019s seat, and these seats were turned so that tbe four other passengers occupying them sat facing each other; tbe windows were up, as tbe weather was hot; one of these four fellow-passengers bad a bottle with some whiskey in it; tbe bottle was passed and tbe whiskey drunk and tbe empty bottle was thrown out of tbe window, and it struck against tbe bank of a cut through which the train was passing, and broke, and pieces of it came back through the window of the car at which plaintiff was sitting and cut his eye; the banks of this cut were jagged and perpendicular (it being a rock cut), and the roadbed passed through the cut on a curve, and the right side of the track was higher than the left side or inside of the curve.\nWe are of opinion that the injury to the plaintiff resulted from no negligence of the defendant, for there is no evidence that the defendant failed in\u2019 any duty it owed him. ' \u25a0\nThe misfortune was occasioned by a pure accident, that reasonable care and foresight could not well guard against. It was \u201can unusual and unexpected event from a known cause, a chance casualty.\u201d Crutchfield v. R. R., 76 N. C., 322.\nAs Webster defines it, \u201can accident in law is equivalent to casita, or such unforeseen, extraordinary extraneous interference as is out of the range of ordinary calculation.\u201d\nAll the courts and text-writers agree that mischief, which could by no reasonable possibility have been foreseen, and which no reasonable j)erson would have anticipated, cannot be taken into account as a basis upon which to predicate a wrong.\nThe carrier is not required to foresee and guard the jtassen-ger against all injuri\u00e9s, but only against such as from the circumstances may reasonably be expected to occur. Penny v. R. R., 153 N. C., 296; Britton v. R. R., 88 N. C., 536.\nA common carrier is not a guarantor of the safety- of its passengers under all circumstances, but is required only to exercise proper care to guard them against injuries which may reasonably be anticipated.\nA carrier of passengers \u201cis not responsible for either violent acts or their consequences, if they could not reasonably have been anticipated as within the range of possibility, nor for such acts-as he could not, with due care and diligence, prevent.\u201d Shearman and Redfield on Negligence (6th Ed.), sec. 512.\nA passenger on a street car who was smoking struck a match and then threw it away while lighted, so that it ignited the frock of a female passenger, which blazed and caused a panic on the car, because of which plaintiff either was thrown, pushed, or jumped from the car and was injured: Hel\u00e9, that such facts were insufficient to establish negligence on the part of the railway company. Fanizzi v. R. R., 99 N. Y. S., 281; 113 App. Div., 440; Sullivan v. R. R., 32 L. R. A., 167.\n\u201cA carrier is not responsible for injury to a passenger from the acts of another passenger, unless the circumstances are such that by the exercise of ordinary care he could have anticipated the danger and guarded against it.\u201d Adams v. R. R., 121 S. W., 419.\n\u201cThe rule that it is the duty of a carrier to use the highest degree of care to protect the passenger from wrong or injury by a fellow-passenger applies only when the carrier has knowledge of the existence of the danger, or of the facts and circumstances from which the danger may be reasonably anticipated.\u201d Norris v. R. R., 88 S. C., 15; 65 S. E., 950; Railway Co. v. Duncan, 121 S. W., 362.\nThe judgment of the Superior Court is\nAffirmed.", "type": "majority", "author": "Bbown, J." } ], "attorneys": [ "W&bb \u25a0& Mull for plaintiff.", "0. F. Mason and. 0. M. Gardner for defendant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "W. M. PRUETT v. SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY.\n(Filed 26 November, 1913.)\nCarriers of Passengers \u2014 Negligence\u2014Accident\u2014Damnum Absque In-juria \u2014 T rials \u2014 Evidence\u2014Nonsuit.\nA railroad company is not responsible for an injury caused to one of its passengers by another which it could not reasonably have anticipated or prevented; and it appearing in .this ease that the plaintiff was riding with three passengers on seats turned so that they face each other, and that after drinking whiskey from a bottle, one of the passengers attempted to throw the bottle from the window in a curved tunnel, and the bottle was shattered against the rugged side of the tunnel, causing some of the fragments of glass to fly back and injure the plaintiff\u2019s eye, it is Held, that the injury thus sustained was accidental, an unusual and unexpected event, from which no damages are recoverable of the railroad.\nAppeal by plaintiff from Justice, J., at Fall Term, 1913, of CLEVELAND.\nCivil action. At tbe conclusion of tbe evidence tbe court sustained motion to nonsuit, and tbe plaintiff excepted and appealed.\nW&bb \u25a0& Mull for plaintiff.\n0. F. Mason and. 0. M. Gardner for defendant." }, "file_name": "0003-01", "first_page_order": 39, "last_page_order": 41 }