{
  "id": 11271897,
  "name": "MARTHA H. LEGGETT, Executrix, v. ATLANTIC COAST LINE RAILROAD COMPANY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Leggett v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad",
  "decision_date": "1917-02-28",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "698",
  "last_page": "699",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "173 N.C. 698"
    }
  ],
  "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": "168 N. C., 366",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8659696
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/168/0366-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "138 N. C., 600",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "154 N. C., 389",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8652477
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/154/0389-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 258,
    "char_count": 3455,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.461,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.23913537044051603
    },
    "sha256": "8de1783fe1c0ae57b74c5653e84ead1bb81f7e65236e975d18124cdf47277f3e",
    "simhash": "1:dc887afcb81aeeff",
    "word_count": 579
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:49:44.051040+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "MARTHA H. LEGGETT, Executrix, v. ATLANTIC COAST LINE RAILROAD COMPANY."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Pee Curiam:.\nWe have carefully considered the record and the exceptions noted, and are of opinion that the cause has been tried in substantial accord with the principles laid down in the former appeal, and that no reversible error has been shown. The reference of the court, in the charge on the first issues, to certain facts in evidence tending to establish contributory negligence should not be allowed to affect the result. The principal negligence alleged against the defendant was a failure of the defendant to provide adequate lights at the station where the testator was present as a passenger, intending to take its next schedule train, and the court, in such clear and explicit terms, instructed the jury, and more than once, that if there was negligent breach of duty in this respect, and such negligence was the proximate cause of testator\u2019s death, to answer the issue \u201cYes,\u201d that the jury could not possibly have been misled, and the reference suggested, if mistaken, should not be held for reversible error.\nIt has often been held with us: \u201cThe charge to a jury must be considered as a whole in the same connected way in which it was given, and upon -the presumption that the jury did not overlook any portion of it. If, when so construed, it presents the law fairly and correctly, it will afford no ground for reversing the judgment, though some of the expressions, when standing alone, might be regarded as erroneous.\u201d Kornegay v. R. R., 154 N. C., 389; S. v. Exum, 138 N. C., 600; and considering the record and charge in the light of this recognized and wholesome principle, we are of opinion, as stated, that no prejudicial error appears and the cause has been correctly tried.\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Pee Curiam:."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "\u2019 Oritcher & Oritcher, Winston & Biggs, Wheeler & Martin, and Winston & Matthews for plaintiff.",
      "F. S. Spruill and H. W. Stuihs for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "MARTHA H. LEGGETT, Executrix, v. ATLANTIC COAST LINE RAILROAD COMPANY.\n(Filed 28 February, 1917.)\nAppeal and Error \u2014 Instructions\u2014Harmless Error.\nIn this action against a railroad company to recover damages for a death alleged to have been caused by the defendant\u2019s negligence involving the usual issues, the principal negligence relied on was the defendant\u2019s failure to properly -light its depot, which the jury answered in the negative under a charge free from error, and construing the charges as a whole, it is Held, that the court\u2019s reference to certain matters affecting the second 'issue, as to contributory negligence, was not reversible error to the plaintiff\u2019s prejudice.\nCivil action, tried before Daniels, J., and a jury, at June term, 1916, of Martin.\nThe cause was before this Court on a former appeal by plaintiff from a judgment of nonsuit in the Superior Court, the judgment being set aside here, and the general facts tending to fix responsibility on defendant will be found stated in the opinion on that appeal, reported in 168 N. C., 366.\nThe opinion having been certified down, the cause was tried, as stated, before Judge Daniels and a jury, on the three ordinary issues in suits of this character:\n1. Was the death of plaintiff\u2019s testator caused by the negligence of defendant company?\n2. If so, did deceased, by his own negligence, contribute to the injury ?\n3. What damages is plaintiff entitled to recover?\nRoth sides offering testimony, the court charged the jury, who rendered their verdict on the first issue, \u201cNo.\u201d\nJudgment for defendant, and plaintiff excepted and appealed.\n\u2019 Oritcher & Oritcher, Winston & Biggs, Wheeler & Martin, and Winston & Matthews for plaintiff.\nF. S. Spruill and H. W. Stuihs for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0698-02",
  "first_page_order": 756,
  "last_page_order": 757
}