{
  "id": 8657005,
  "name": "ISOM PATRICK v. GIANT LUMBER COMPANY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Patrick v. Giant Lumber Co.",
  "decision_date": "1913-12-03",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "208",
  "last_page": "209",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "164 N.C. 208"
    }
  ],
  "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": 234,
    "char_count": 3391,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.428,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.207966869300525e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3286359552236443
    },
    "sha256": "e32911089f52daa506786c427cb861456622babece5c0ae4c02cbde5a8e9ed22",
    "simhash": "1:a5224c382e2b846a",
    "word_count": 566
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:20:25.630766+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "ISOM PATRICK v. GIANT LUMBER COMPANY."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Brown, J.\nThis action was brought to recover damages caused to the plaintiff\u2019s land by the negligent'setting out of fire of the defendant without giving due notice. The fire spread to the plaintiff\u2019s lands and destroyed his timber.\nThe action was originally brought against W.. H. Taylor and Ham Miller, as well as the defendant company, but- a nonsuit was taken as to them.. The only assignment of error is the refusal of the court to allow the motion to nonsuit.\nTbe defendant contends that tbe negligence complained of was that of Taylor and'Miller, and that they were independent contractors, and that under the evidence as a whole it is not liable for tbe tort complained of, and that, therefore, the court below should hare aEowed its motion, under the statute, to non-suit plaintiff.\nThe plaintiff, oh the other hand, contends that Miller and Taylor were not independent contractors, but that they were sufficiently under the general control of the defendant company to make it liable for the tort complained, of.\nThe sawmill and lands where the fire originated belonged to the defendant company, and the mill was operated by \"Will Taylor. He testified that he operated the mill from which location tbe fire got out; that tbe Giant Lumber Company paid him for it. It was Will Palmer\u2019s mill, and George Palmer was foreman.\nThere is evidence amply sufficient to go to the jury that the control of the operations of Taylor in operating the mill and of Miller in logging it was exercised by the defendant company, and that it retained supervision and control over the servants employed and tbe methods of work.\nThe chief consideration which determines one to be an independent contractor is the fact that the employer has no right of control as to the mode of doing the work contracted for. If the employer has the right of control, it is immaterial whether he actually exercises it. 16 Am. and Eng., 188.\nWe think his Honor committed no error in denying the motion to nonsuit.\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Brown, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Benbow & Gminess, T. G. Bowie for plaintiff.",
      "Finley & Hendren, W. W. Barber for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "ISOM PATRICK v. GIANT LUMBER COMPANY.\n(Filed 3 December, 1913.)\nMaster and Servant \u2014 Contracts\u2014Independent Contractor \u2014 Trials\u2014 Evidence \u2014 Control by Employer.\nIn determining the liability for a tort alleged by the defendant to bave been committed by an independent\u2019 contractor, the question is determinative as to whether the employer has the right .to control the employee in respect to the work from which the injury arose, whether he exercised the right or not; and where there is evidence of this character of employment and per contra, the, question of independent contractor should be submitted to the jury under proper instructions, and a motion for judgment as of nonsuit denied.\n. Appeal by defendants from Gime, J., at August Term, 1913, . of \"Wilkes.\nCivil action, tried upon these issues: . .\n1. Did the defendant lumber company set fire to its woodland adjoining the lands of the plaintiff without giving any notice of its intention to do so? Answer: Tes. .\n2. If so, did such fire escape from defendant\u2019s land to and burn over the plaintiff\u2019s land, injuring and destroying the plaintiff\u2019s fence, timber, and undergrowth, as alleged 'in the complaint? Answer: Yes.\n3. What damage is the plaintiff entitled to recover of the defendant, Giant Lumber Company? Answer: $300.\nThe defendant appealed.\nBenbow & Gminess, T. G. Bowie for plaintiff.\nFinley & Hendren, W. W. Barber for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0208-01",
  "first_page_order": 244,
  "last_page_order": 245
}