{
  "id": 8654448,
  "name": "H. A. OLIVER v. WILTS VENEER COMPANY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Oliver v. Wilts Veneer Co.",
  "decision_date": "1920-09-22",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "655",
  "last_page": "656",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "180 N.C. 655"
    }
  ],
  "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": 140,
    "char_count": 1760,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.456,
    "sha256": "7194c7503641eb3eb06e3a36deb2f2c2b36808a6ffcb1e90abe1dba79eb685d8",
    "simhash": "1:b176d434e83e6e37",
    "word_count": 292
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:30:08.757715+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "H. A. OLIVER v. WILTS VENEER COMPANY."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Eer Curiam.\nTbe plaintiff wa.s injured while wiping oil off a shaft in tbe veneer plant of defendant, tbe sleeve of bis jumper catching in tbe cogs, causing bis arm to be drawn between tbe cogs and severely mashed.\nTbe motion to nonsuit was properly overruled, there being abundant evidence justifying bis Honor in submitting tbe issues to tbe jury.\nThere are 56 assignments of error, 39 of them being to tbe evidence and tbe remainder to tbe charge. We think that there is no merit in tbe exceptions to tbe evidence, and that, taking tbe charge as a whole, it is a full, clear, and fair presentation of tbe issues to tbe jury.\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Eer Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Majette & Whitley for plaintiff.",
      "Z. V. Norman and Small, MacLean, Bragaw & Rodman for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "H. A. OLIVER v. WILTS VENEER COMPANY.\n(Filed 22 September, 1920.)\nEvidence \u2014 Questions for Jury \u2014 Instructions.\nIn tbis action to recover damages for tbe alleged negligence of bis employer in causing an employee a personal injury, it is beld that tbe case was properly submitted to tbe jury, under correct instructions, and defendants\u2019 exceptions to tbe evidence were without merit.\nAppeal from Lyon, J., and a jury, at April Term, 1920, of \"WASHINGTON. From judgment for plaintiff, the defendant appealed.\nThe following are the issues passed on by the jury:\n\u201c1. Was plaintiff, H. A. Oliver, injured by the negligence of defendant, Wilts Yeneer Company, as alleged in the complaint? Answer: \u2018Yes.\u2019\n\u201c2. Did plaintiff, by Ms own negligence, contribute to Ms injury, as alleged by defendant? Answer; \u2018No.\u2019\n\u201c3. Did plaintiff, H. A. Oliver, execute the release, as alleged by the \"defendant, Wilts Yeneer Company? Answer: \u2018No.\u2019 \u201d\nTbe jury assessed plaintiff\u2019s damages at $6,000.\nFrom tbe judgment rendered tbe defendant appealed.\nMajette & Whitley for plaintiff.\nZ. V. Norman and Small, MacLean, Bragaw & Rodman for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0655-01",
  "first_page_order": 713,
  "last_page_order": 714
}