{ "id": 8657602, "name": "N. A. GREEN v. W. M. RITTER LUMBER COMPANY et al.", "name_abbreviation": "Green v. W. M. Ritter Lumber Co.", "decision_date": "1921-12-21", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "681", "last_page": "682", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "182 N.C. 681" } ], "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": "180 N. C., 636", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8654409 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/180/0636-01" ] }, { "cite": "181 N. C., 527", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8657364 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/181/0527-01" ] }, { "cite": "160 N. C., 93", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11270596 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/160/0093-01" ] }, { "cite": "165 N. C., 27", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8656942 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/165/0027-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 291, "char_count": 3686, "ocr_confidence": 0.447, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.0977092020482314e-07, "percentile": 0.5672788259083831 }, "sha256": "071c596fd4375b06e013c8f33c75118fd80f8b21c03ccfa9187988217fd92d14", "simhash": "1:877314b0a2c0b971", "word_count": 622 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:57:09.696199+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "N. A. GREEN v. W. M. RITTER LUMBER COMPANY et al." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Stagy, J.\nThe defendants rely chiefly upon their motion for judgment as of nonsuit; but, under the principle announced in Steeley v. Lumber Co., 165 N. C., 27; Pigford v. R. R., 160 N. C., 93, and numerous other cases to like import, we think the evidence was sufficient to require its submission to the jury and to warrant a verdict in favor of the plaintiff.\nThe remaining exception is directed to a portion of his Honor\u2019s charge in which he undertakes to state the plaintiff\u2019s contentions. Defendants say the contentions of their adversary were overstated, or stated too strongly; that they were not supported by the evidence, and that they were given in an argumentative form. We have examined the charge with a view of determining whether the defendants could have been prejudiced in any degree by the manner in which the contentions were given, but we have found nothing upon which to base any criticism. On the other hand, the charge as a whole seems to have been fair, impartial, and exceptionally clear. Furthermore, this exception comes within the well settled rule that objections to the statement of contentions must be made at some appropriate time during the charge or at its conclusion. This requirement is a reasonable one, and has been adopted so that the trial court may be given an opportunity to correct any error in the respect indicated. S. v. Hall, 181 N. C., 527; McMahan v. Spruce Co., 180 N. C., 636, and cases there cited.\nWe have discovered no sufficient reason for disturbing the verdict and judgment.\nNo error.", "type": "majority", "author": "Stagy, J." } ], "attorneys": [ "Thurman Leatherwood and Felix E. Alley for plaintiff.", "8. 6r. Bernard and S. W. Blaclc for defendants." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "N. A. GREEN v. W. M. RITTER LUMBER COMPANY et al.\n(Filed 21 December, 1921.)\n1. Employer and Employee \u2014 Master and Servant \u2014 Sale Place to Work\u2014 Negligence \u2014 Evidence\u2014Motions\u2014Nonsuit\u2014Trials.\nWhere there is evidence tending to show that the plaintiff was injured while in the scope of his employment, by the neglect of the defendant in not furnishing him sufficient help and proper appliances, which resulted in the personal injury complained of in the action, a motion as of nonsuit thereon by the defendant is properly denied.\n2. Appeal and Error \u2014 Instructions\u2014Contentions\u2014Objections and Exceptions.\nObjections to the statement of the contentions of the parties by the judge in his charge to the jury must be taken at some appropriate time during the charge or at its conclusion, to afford the trial judge opportunity for correcting errors he may have made therein, in order that an exception thereto may be considered on appeal.\nAppeal by defendants from Bryson, J., at July Term, 1921, of SwaiN. Civil action to recover damages for an alleged negligent injury to plaintiff while working at tbe defendant\u2019s planing mill on 10 January, 1920.\nThere was evidence, adduced on tbe trial, tending to show that tbe planing machine at which tbe plaintiff did bis work was defective and unsafe; that be was required to operate it without sufficient help or assistance; that, for the want of a helper to bear off the strips and boards, they were allowed to accumulate around the planer, causing it to stall and rendering it necessary for the plaintiff to make certain adjustments ; that, in his effort to remedy this situation, made more hazardous by reason of the conditions above stated, coupled with a worn and defective wrench, which he was required to use, his hand was caught in the revolving knives and painfully and permanently injured.\nThe usual issues of negligence, contributory negligence, and damages were submitted to the jury, and answered by them in favor of the plaintiff. From the judgment rendered thereon the defendants appealed.\nThurman Leatherwood and Felix E. Alley for plaintiff.\n8. 6r. Bernard and S. W. Blaclc for defendants." }, "file_name": "0681-01", "first_page_order": 751, "last_page_order": 752 }