{
  "id": 8654621,
  "name": "L. K. HICKS v. SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Hicks v. Southern Railway Co.",
  "decision_date": "1925-04-22",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "548",
  "last_page": "549",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "189 N.C. 548"
    }
  ],
  "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": 236,
    "char_count": 3444,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.49,
    "sha256": "2a2b61c2aca86715a2c2e39e1aff13f942e96b8fbbf0b278d1dfc602468d2683",
    "simhash": "1:3f62049e92c4c6cb",
    "word_count": 578
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:40:32.095485+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "L. K. HICKS v. SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Pee Cubiam.\nDefendant relies entirely upon its demurrer to tbe evidence, interposed first at tbe close of plaintiff's evidence, by motion to dismiss tbe action or for judgment as of nonsuit, and renewed by like motion at tbe close of all tbe evidence. C. S., 567.\nViewing the evidence in its most favorable light for the plaintiff, the accepted position on a motion of tbis kind, we tbink ,the trial court was justified in submitting the case to the jury and that the verdict is amply supported thereby. It is the settled rule of practice in tbis jurisdiction that, on a motion to nonsuit, the evidence which makes for the plaintiff's claim and which tends to support bis cause of action, whether offered by the plaintiff or elicited from the defendant\u2019s witnesses, is to be taken and considered in its most favorable light for the plaintiff, and be is entitled to the benefit of every reasonable intendment upon the evidence and every reasonable inference to be drawn therefrom. Nash v. Royster, ante, 408.\nNo benefit would be derived from detailing tbe testimony of tbe several witnesses, as tbe only question before us is wbetber it is sufficient to carry tbe case to tbe jury, and we think it is.\nTbe plaintiff being in tbe employ of a common carrier by railroad, and having brought bis action to recover damages for an alleged negligent injury, received while in tbe discharge of bis duties as such employee, is not barred of bis right to recover by reason of bis own contributory negligence, but such negligence is to be taken in consideration by tbe jury in diminishing tbe damages which be otherwise would have been entitled to have awarded. The rule applicable is stated in Cobia v. R. R., 188 N. C., p. 496.\nTbe evidence was conflicting on tbe main issue of liability; tbe jury has determined tbe matter against tbe defendant; there is no reversible error appearing on tbe record; tbe verdict and judgment will be upheld.\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Pee Cubiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Bynum, Hobgood & Alderman for plaintiff.",
      "Wilson & Frazier for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "L. K. HICKS v. SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY.\n(Filed 22 April, 1925.)\n1. Evidence \u2014 Nonsuit\u2014Statutes.\nA motion as of nonsuit made under the provisions of O. S. 567, at the close of plaintiff\u2019s evidence and renewed at the close of all the evidence, will be denied if it is sufficient to support a verdict in plaintiff\u2019s favor taken in the light most favorable to him, whether elicited on direct or cross-examination, and he is entitled to the benefit of every reasonable inference to be drawn therefrom.\n3. Railroads' \u2014 Negligence\u2014Contributory Negligence \u2014 Damages.\nThe contributory negligence of an employee against a railroad company, his employer, will not be held under our statute as a complete bar to his recovery of damages inflicted by the defendant\u2019s negligence, but the jury must take it into consideration under proper instructions from the court, in diminishing the amount of damages recoverable.\nAppeal by defendant from McFlroy, J., at January Term, 1925, of G-uilfoed.\nCivil action tried upon tbe following issues:\n\u201c1. \"Was tbe plaintiff injured by tbe negligence of tbe defendant, as alleged in tbe complaint? Answer: Tes.\n\u201c2. Did tbe plaintiff by bis own negligence contribute to bis said injury, as alleged in tbe answer? Answer: Yes.\n\u201c3. Wbat amount of damages, if any, is tbe plaintiff entitled to recover? Answer: $5,000.00.\u201d\nFrom a judgment .on tbe verdict for plaintiff, tbe defendant appeals, assigning errors.\nBynum, Hobgood & Alderman for plaintiff.\nWilson & Frazier for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0548-01",
  "first_page_order": 626,
  "last_page_order": 627
}