{
  "id": 11252025,
  "name": "GEORGE GRAHAM v. NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Graham v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co.",
  "decision_date": "1917-09-12",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "1",
  "last_page": "3",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "174 N.C. 1"
    }
  ],
  "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": "138 N. C., 82",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "161 N. C., 462",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11271420
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/161/0462-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "63 L. R. A., 68",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "L.R.A.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 358,
    "char_count": 6133,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.456,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 7.591356421208395e-08,
      "percentile": 0.44970575504595056
    },
    "sha256": "59efda6b4e91a4179c1481782e961e775b60e1d8a949fa07286bdcd5fea08b07",
    "simhash": "1:4c49c5ed31ddf855",
    "word_count": 1069
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:13:24.898604+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "GEORGE GRAHAM v. NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "DEPENDANT\u2019S APPEAL.\nBrown, J.\nPlaintiff testified tbat be was a passenger for Wilmar on defendant\u2019s road; tbat tbe porter passed tbrougb car and called station; tbat be was crippled at time and started for door in company witb another negro named Fulcher; as be reached second step, train was jerked violently and be was thrown on bis bead and a dent made in it, causing serious injury, confining him for three months.\nPlaintiff offered other evidence tending to prove injury and damage. Defendant denied tbe injury and tbe negligence and offered evidence tending to prove tbat the conductor took tbe proper position between colored and white cars when train stopped at Wilmar, and was in a position to help any passenger needing assistance; tbat plaintiff did not ask for assistance, and tbat conductor did not see him fall. Defendant offered other evidence tending to corroborate tbjs, and also testimony of a physician tbat be examined plaintiff ten days after tbe alleged injury and found mo wound -in bis bead or other evidence of injury, and tbat plaintiff was then in good physical condition.\nTbe jury after taking tbe case returned and asked certain information. Tbe following colloquy took place between tbe jury and the judge:\nQ. The jury wants to ask a little information; whether tbe conductor and tbe porter \u2014 whether the law requires the conductor and porter to be at tbe exit of tbe coach when tbe passengers are getting off ?\nA. I don\u2019t know tbat tbat is so; tbe evidence here was tbat their place was between tbe colored coach and tbe white coach.\nQ. What tbe jury wants to know is, whether the law requires them to be there?\nA. Neither the porter or conductor is required to assist the passengers unless the passenger requests it, or unless in the position they occupy they could see, in the exercise of reasonable care, that they were in need of assistance.\nQ. There is one other question; whether tbe porter is required to open tbe door and call tbe stations?\nA. The law requires tbat an announcement shall be made; tbe testimony in this case was that the porter went through the car; I don\u2019t think there is any requirement as to the'place they shall occupy.\nQ. The conductor and porter were not required to have a regular station when tbe passengers were getting out of tbe train?\nA. In this case tbe evidence was tbat they were at their usual places where they stood, between tbe two cars; and so far as appears, they were in tbe places where they ought to have been.\nIn view of tbe evidence in this case we are of opinion that there is no substantial error in above instructions. It is well settled that when a passenger is sick, blind, or crippled and infirm, and his condition is apparent or made hnown to tbe carrier, it is bound to render tbe passenger necessary assistance in boarding or alighting from its cars. 4 R. C. L., 1235. It is also well settled tbat a carrier will not be liable for failure to assist wben not asked and wben ignorant of tbe need for assistance. Ibid., Southern Ry. v. Hobbs, 63 L. R. A., 68; Anderson v. R. R., 161 N. C., 462; Clark v. Traction Co., 138 N. C., 82.\nTbe evidence of plaintiff is tbat tbe porter came tbrougb tbe car and called tbe station; tbat be did not ask for assistance or make known bis condition to tbe porter or conductor, but undertook to get off tbe car in company witb one Fulcber. Plaintiff bad ample opportunity to notify tbe conductor wben be took up bis ticket, and also tbe porter wben be passed tbrougb tbe car before reaching Wilmar.\nIn view of tbe evidence, we tbink tbe judge erred in setting aside tbe verdict as matter of-law.\nThe verdict will be'reinstated and judgment rendered for defendant.\nEeversed.\nPLAINTIFF\u2019S APPEAL.\nPlaintiff\u2019s assignments of error are all directed to tbe charge of tbe . court.\nIt is assigned as error tbat tbe court charged tbat no duty rested on defendant to assist tbe plaintiff in getting off tbe train, but only to allow him a reasonable time to get off. Tbe full instruction is as follows :\n\u201cTbe court charges you tbat there was no duty resting on defendant to assist plaintiff in getting off tbe train, but only to allow bim a reasonable time to get off, unless be bad requested, called attention to any infirmity which be might have bad and requested assistance, or if in attempting to get off tbe defendant\u2019s conductor .or porter could, in tbe exercise of reasonable care \u2014 such as they were required to bestow at tbe time passengers were alighting \u2014 could have observed tbat be was crippled and unable to help himself.\u201d\nThere can be no question tbat this is a correct statement of tbe law as universally declared by tbe courts and text-writers.\nWe have examined tbe. other assignments of error, and tbink they are without merit and are covered by what is said' in tbe opinion in defendant\u2019s appeal. Tbe charge as a whole appears to be a fair and clear presentation of tbe case to tbe jury.\nOn plaintiff\u2019s appeal we find\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Brown, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Daniel & Warren for plaintiff.",
      "Small, MacLean, Bragaw & Rodman for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "GEORGE GRAHAM v. NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY.\n(Filed 12 September, 1917.)\n1. Carrier of Passengers \u2014 Infirm Passenger \u2014 Duty of Carrier \u2014 Negligence.\nA carrier of passengers is not liable for\u2019an injury to a passenger leaving the car at liis destination, caused solely by bis physical infirmity, when the assistance of its employees in charge of the cars had not been requested upon opportunity thereto afforded, and in the exercise of proper care of the passengers they were in ignorance of the circumstances requiring their assistance.\n2. Appeal and Error \u2014 Verdict Set Aside \u2014 Matters of Law.\nWhere the trial judge sets aside a verdict as a matter of law, and not within his discretion, an appeal will lie; and the verdict reinstated when he was in error in so acting.\nCivil actioN tried before Daniels, J., at February Term, 1917, of Beaufort, upon this issue:\n\"Was plaintiff injured by negligence of defendant as alleged? Answer: \u201cNo.\u201d\nHis Honor set aside the verdict for error of law in charging jury and not in his discretion. Defendant excepted and appealed. Plaintiff also appealed.\nDaniel & Warren for plaintiff.\nSmall, MacLean, Bragaw & Rodman for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0001-01",
  "first_page_order": 57,
  "last_page_order": 59
}