{
  "id": 11270776,
  "name": "MARY HOWARD SPRINGS, Administratrix of WILLIAM E. SPRINGS, v. TALLASSEE POWER COMPANY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Springs v. Tallassee Power Co.",
  "decision_date": "1922-11-29",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "425",
  "last_page": "426",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "184 N.C. 425"
    }
  ],
  "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": 143,
    "char_count": 1861,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.431,
    "sha256": "b7f873824f00d369d1b347f949e140f215fa5cf7fb8bfa062f1970a368f31fb0",
    "simhash": "1:1326a668f6cd866d",
    "word_count": 299
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:54:19.408476+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "MARY HOWARD SPRINGS, Administratrix of WILLIAM E. SPRINGS, v. TALLASSEE POWER COMPANY."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Clark, C. J.\nTbe usual issues, in sueb cases, of negligence, contributory negligence, and assumption of risk were submitted. Tbe defendant asked tbe court to instruct tbe jury as to eacb of tbe three issues, severally, as follows: \u201cIf tbe jury shall find tbe facts from all tbe evidence considered in tbe light most favorable to tbe plaintiff, they will answer this issue No.\u2019 \u201d\nOn appeal, tbe defendant abandons all exceptions except to tbe refusal of these instructions. Upon careful examination of tbe evidence, we find that there was sufficient evidence for tbe plaintiff to go to tbe jury upon eacb of these three propositions. There was evidence to tbe contrary on eacb of these issues, but that was a matter for tbe jury. In refusing tbe peremptory instructions asked we find\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Clark, C. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Slack, Parlcer & Graig for plaintiff.",
      "E. T. Gansler, B. L. Smith, and John G. Sikes for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "MARY HOWARD SPRINGS, Administratrix of WILLIAM E. SPRINGS, v. TALLASSEE POWER COMPANY.\n(Filed 29 November, 1922.)\nInstructions \u2014 Evidence\u2014Issues\u2014Verdict Directing.\nRequested prayers for instruction tbat the jury find the issues of negligence, contributory negligence, and assumption of risk in defendant\u2019s favor, \u201cif they should find the facts from all the evidence considered in the light most favorable to the plaintiff,\u201d are properly refused, if the evidence on the issues is conflicting and sufficient to sustain verdicts in plaintiff\u2019s favor, in his action to recover damages for the wrongful killing of his intestate.\nAppeal by defendant from Webb, J., at May Term, 1922, of UNION.\nThis is an action for the alleged negligent death of the plaintiff\u2019s intestate, who was killed by the electric current of the defendant company while painting the defendant\u2019s towers for transmission of its electric current. Yerdict and judgment for plaintiff. Appeal by defendant.\nSlack, Parlcer & Graig for plaintiff.\nE. T. Gansler, B. L. Smith, and John G. Sikes for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0425-01",
  "first_page_order": 481,
  "last_page_order": 482
}