{
  "id": 11271253,
  "name": "M. L. MORRIS v. CAROLINA, CLINCHFIELD AND OHIO RAILROAD",
  "name_abbreviation": "Morris v. Carolina, Clinchfield & Ohio Railroad",
  "decision_date": "1916-05-17",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "533",
  "last_page": "535",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "171 N.C. 533"
    }
  ],
  "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., 387",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8660610
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/128/0387-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "150 N. C., 483",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11271677
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/150/0483-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "128 N. C., 264",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8659695
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/128/0264-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 352,
    "char_count": 5292,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.455,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.0743161183840662e-07,
      "percentile": 0.5605506344192268
    },
    "sha256": "c4089b102c1793df01df998365760fb974390ac59ef6e35a73fea176cc29e1ad",
    "simhash": "1:db7b734d9f1ee1c6",
    "word_count": 950
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:52:28.143754+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "M. L. MORRIS v. CAROLINA, CLINCHFIELD AND OHIO RAILROAD."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Clabe:, 0. J.\nThis is an appeal from a nonsuit. The plaintiff was driving a spike about 6 inches long into a cross-tie, which had been driven in two-thirds of its length when his hammer slipped off the head of the spike, striking the tie 2 inches below. The allegation-is that this caused the plaintiff to sprain his back. He alleges that the face of the hammer was worn slick and that he had been promised a new hammer, and that, besides, he was standing on a pile of loose dirt, and that, a train being expected, he was ordered by the section foreman to hurry up and get the tie in place before the arrival of the train.\nThe plaintiff was engaged in the simple work of driving a spike into a cross-tie. An injury could not be expected because the face of the hammer was worn smooth, nor that the plaintiff would strike the head of the \u2022 spike at such an angle that the hammer would glance and go 2 inches further till it struck the tie; nor was it negligence that, the train being due, the foreman asked the men to hurry up; nor was it negligence that in repairing tbe track the plaintiff happened to be standing on a small pile of loose earth. No injury could reasonably have beOn foreseen because of any one of these circumstances, nor from all three combined.\nAs Mr. Pless for'the defendant well says, if a chopper is sent with a dull axe into the w'oods on the mountain-side, where the ground is uneven, on which the workman may slip, the employer cannot be held liable if under such circumstances the dull axe may glance, causing the laborer to slip and wrench his back. The cases are analogous.\nIn Martin v. Mfg. Co., 128 N. C., 264, known as \u201cthe hammer case,\u201d it was held that \u201ctools of ordinary and everyday use, which are simple in structure, requiring no skill in handling \u2014 such as hammers and axes\u2014 not obviously defective, do not impose a liability upon the employer for injuries resulting from such defects.\u201d That case cites many authorities and has been cited with approval since in many cases. There a sliver flew off the face of the hammer, striking the plaintiff in the eye; but we said: \u201cInjuries resulting from events taking place without one\u2019s foresight or expectation, or an event which proceeds from an unknown cause, or is an unusual effect of a known cause, and, therefore, not expected, must be borne by the unfortunate sufferer.\u201d This was cited with approval in Lassiter v. R. R., 150 N. C., 483, where the plaintiff was injured in unloading rails from a flat car by the rail bounding back in an unusual and unexpected way and striking him, and the Court said: \u201cThe plaintiff\u2019s injury was the result of an unforeseen and unavoidable accident, and a nonsuit should have been entered.\u201d\nIn Bryan v. R. R., 128 N. C., 387, the Court said: \u201cThe employer is not responsible for an accident simply because it happens, but only when he has contributed to it by some act or omission of duty.\u201d\nThe whole subject has been very recently reviewed by Ilolce, J., in Wright v. Thompson, ante, 88, with full citation of authorities. In that case, in repairing a dredge whose crane and dipper had become loosened, the plaintiff, in driving in the drift-pin to fasten them, struck it with a hammer, when a piece of steel from the defective and broken drift-pin flew off and struck the plaintiff in his eye and put it out. We set aside the nonsuit because it w\u00a1as shown that the drift-pin furnished the plaintiff had been broken off and had remained so at least thirty days, and that the plaintiff had notified -the foreman of its defective condition. Injury might reasonably have been expected from such cause. That was certainly a very different case from the present. Here the tool was a hammer, and it could not be anticipated that on striking the spike to drive it into the cross-tie the hammer would slip, nor that by its going 2 inches further the plaintiff\u2019s back would be sprained. His standing upon a loose mound of earth also certainly was a mere incident, and could not have been expected to cause injury.\nTbe authorities are numerously cited in Wright v. Thompson, supra, and tbe line so plainly \u201cmarked and run\u201d that we do not think it necessary to.go over the same ground.\nIt seems to us that the injury in this case was purely an accident, and that no negligence on the part of the defendant was shown. The judgment of nonsuit is\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Clabe:, 0. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "M. T. Morgan for plaintiff.",
      "J. J. McLaughlin and Pless & Winborne for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "M. L. MORRIS v. CAROLINA, CLINCHFIELD AND OHIO RAILROAD.\n(Filed 17 May, 1916.)\nBlaster and Servant \u2014 Railroads\u2014Safe Appliances \u2014 Negligence\u2014Evidence\u2014 Nonsuit.\nThe master, a railroad, is not liable to its servant for an injury received while at work on its railroad track, driving a 6-inch spike into a cross-tie, because the face of the hammer had been worn slick, he had been promised a new one, and he was standing at the time on a loose pile of dirt, and was hurried by the foreman for the passage of an expected train, the injury being a sprain in the servant\u2019s back; for such could not have reasonably been anticipated by the master, does not come within the rule of liability requiring the master to furnish safe tools, etc., and a judgment of nonsuit was proper.\nAppeal by plaintiff from Justice, J., at January Term, 1916, of McDowell.\nM. T. Morgan for plaintiff.\nJ. J. McLaughlin and Pless & Winborne for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0533-01",
  "first_page_order": 585,
  "last_page_order": 587
}