{ "id": 8653557, "name": "DAVIS LIVESTOCK COMPANY v. JAMES C. DAVIS, Director General of Railroads", "name_abbreviation": "Davis Livestock Co. v. Davis", "decision_date": "1924-09-24", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "220", "last_page": "221", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "188 N.C. 220" } ], "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": "172 N. C., 616", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11254967 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "618" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/172/0616-01" ] }, { "cite": "184 N. C., 478", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11271031 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/184/0478-01" ] }, { "cite": "138 N. C., 68", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11268746 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/138/0068-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 303, "char_count": 4629, "ocr_confidence": 0.483, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.3881941959850483e-07, "percentile": 0.642201919880271 }, "sha256": "dd0fa10c771573b64f4a5f39fcbccb41ed193e558c8d5765d98b5e64b973dc70", "simhash": "1:a5e1bfe543d2ae71", "word_count": 771 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:44:41.585516+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "DAVIS LIVESTOCK COMPANY v. JAMES C. DAVIS, Director General of Railroads." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Adajms, J.\nOn 26 January, 1920, the plaintiff delivered to the defendant twenty-four mules for carriage from Eichmond, Ya., to Earm-ville, N. 0. One of them died during transportation, and the plaintiff brought this action to recover its value. There was evidence for the defendant tending to sbow that while the train was at Emporia, Ya., one of the brakemen saw the injured mule, with a hind foot made fast in a transom, or ventilator, presumably by kicking, and with its head and shoulders on the floor; that its face and one eye were disfigured; that it was finally released and then left in the car, and that it was dead when the train arrived at \"Weldon.\nThe defendant contended that the loss was due to the mule\u2019s viciousness, and relied upon the plaintiff\u2019s agreement, set out in the bill of lading, to indemnify the defendant against claims arising out of loss or-injury caused by \u201cthe inherent vice or the wild and unruly condition or conduct of any of the said livestock, including self-inflicted injuries.\u201d'\nThe defendant admitted the contract of carriage, the receipt of the-stock, and the death of one of the mules while in its possession. In these circumstances the loss is presumed to have been attributable to. the defendant\u2019s negligence. Everett v. R. R., 138 N. C., 68; Hosiery Co., v. Express Co., 184 N. C., 478. The learned judge observed this princi-. pie, and very clearly instructed the jury as to its application, but in addition he gave the following instruction, to which the plaintiff ex--cepted: \u201cNow, if this evidence satisfies you that this mule kicked over the door, got his foot caught there, in a car that was a standard car and in good condition, in a'train that was managed and run without negligence, then the presumption would he rebutted, and you. would answer-the issue \u2018No.\u2019 \u201d\nWhen the plaintiff offered evidence giving rise to the presumption of' negligence, it was incumbent upon the defendant t\u00f3' exculpate itself by rebutting the presumption; but the instruction complained of excluded, the jury\u2019s determination of the question whether the defendant exercised due care to relieve the situation after discovery of the mule\u2019s condition at Emporia. Teeter v. Express Co., 172 N. C., 616, 618. True,, the jury were further instructed to answer the issue for the defendant if they believed all the evidence; but under this instruction they were privileged to disbelieve a part of the evidence and yet return a negative verdict merely upon finding that the mule, by kicking, caught its foot-above the door of \u201ca standard car, in good condition, in a train that was. managed and run without negligence.\u201d The instruction as to the operation and management of the train was not comprehensive enough to. include the duty which the defendant owed the plaintiff while the train was \u201cset off\u201d and the defendant\u2019s employees were trying to release the injured mule. For the error complained of, the plaintiff is entitled to a.\nNew trial.", "type": "majority", "author": "Adajms, J." } ], "attorneys": [ "Martin &,Sheppard and Julius Brown for plaintiff.", "Slcinner & Whedbee for defendant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "DAVIS LIVESTOCK COMPANY v. JAMES C. DAVIS, Director General of Railroads.\n(Filed 24 September, 1924.)\n1. Carriers \u2014 Railroads \u2014 Negligence \u2014 Livestock \u2014 Evidence\u2014Presumptions \u2014 Rebuttal.\nIn an action against tbe railroad to recover damages for tbe death of \u25a0a mule, in a carload livestock shipment, in the bill of lading for which was a provision exempting the carrier from liability for injuries caused by the inherent viciousness of the animals, etc., the receipt of the stock and the death of the mule while in the carrier\u2019s possession raises a presumption of its actionable negligence, which the carrier may rebut by showing that the shipment was made in a proper car and that the carrier exercised due care in its transportation.\n2. Same \u2014 Instructions\u2014Appeal and Error.\nWhere the bill of lading issued by the carrier for the transportation and delivery of a carload shipment of livestock contains the usual provision exempting the carrier from liability for injuries caused by the inherent viciousness of the animals, etc., and there was evidence on the trial tending to show that one of them had kicked over the transom of the car and was thrown to the floor and found injured in transitu by the \u2022carrier\u2019s employee, a charge of the court that relieves the carrier from exercising due care after discovering the condition of the mule is reversible error.\nAppeal by plaintiff from Daniels, J., at March Term, 1924, of Pitt.\nThe jury returned a negative answer to the issue, \u201cWas plaintiff\u2019s mule injured by the negligence of the railroad, as alleged in the complaint ?\u201d\nMartin &,Sheppard and Julius Brown for plaintiff.\nSlcinner & Whedbee for defendant." }, "file_name": "0220-01", "first_page_order": 290, "last_page_order": 291 }