{
  "id": 8632203,
  "name": "DAVE McKINISH v. NORWOOD LUMBER COMPANY",
  "name_abbreviation": "McKinish v. Norwood Lumber Co.",
  "decision_date": "1926-05-27",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "836",
  "last_page": "837",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "191 N.C. 836"
    }
  ],
  "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": "185 N. C., 560",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8656837
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/185/0560-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 259,
    "char_count": 3745,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.437,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.770845263994211e-08,
      "percentile": 0.41404151361720315
    },
    "sha256": "b51c27f9b283ec8d10876c4cc4fe786b7e66dc2e6c34b7a0cdb76cc008e96371",
    "simhash": "1:bec52af6fa548758",
    "word_count": 630
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:52:36.568148+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "DAVE McKINISH v. NORWOOD LUMBER COMPANY."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nDefendant relies, on this appeal, chiefly upon its exception to tbe refusal of tbe court to allow its motion for judgment as of nonsuit, at tbe close of all tbe evidence. Tbe only other exceptions are to tbe exclusion of evidence upon objection of plaintiff. There are no exceptions to tbe instructions of tbe court in tbe charge to tbe jury, wbicb has not been included in tbe case on appeal.\nTbe fact, as found by tbe jury, that plaintiff by bis own negligence contributed to bis injury, does not bar a recovery by him of damages resulting from bis injury. Tbe effect of contributory negligence was to diminish tbe amount assessed by tbe jury as damages in proportion to tbe amount of negligence attributable to plaintiff. C. S. (1919), secs. 3466, 3467 and 3468, by tbe express provisions of C. S., 3470, are applicable in an action against defendant by plaintiff, to recover damages upon tbe facts of this case. Defendant was engaged in tbe operation of a logging road, and plaintiff was employed by defendant in tbe operation of said road. Tbe injury was sustained while plaintiff was at work as such employee. Craig v. Lumber Co., 185 N. C., 560.\nThere was evidence from wbicb tbe jury could find, as they did, that plaintiff was injured by reason of a defect, or insufficiency, due to defendant\u2019s negligence, in tbe appliances, furnished by defendant to plaintiff, with wbicb to do bis work. Tbe assignments of error cannot be sustained and tbe judgment must be affirmed. There is\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "McKinley Edwards and Moody & Moody for plaintiff.",
      "Alley & Leatherwood and S. W-. Black for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "DAVE McKINISH v. NORWOOD LUMBER COMPANY.\n(Filed 27 May, 1926.)\nMaster and Servant \u2014 Employer and Employee \u2014 Carriers\u2014Logging Roads \u2014Contributory Negligence \u2014 Statutes.\nA logging road comes within the provision of our statute making contributory negligence of an employee an element of consideration by the jury in assessing the amount of damages recoverable, and is not a complete bar to the employee\u2019s recovery in his action for damages.\nAppeal by defendant from Webb, J., at October-November Term, 1925, of SwaiN. No error.\nAction to recover damages for personal injury, alleged to have been sustained by plaintiff, an employee of defendant, a corporation, while operating a steam skidder, used in loading logs on defendant\u2019s cars, to be transported on defendant\u2019s logging road.\nWhile plaintiff was \u201cspooling\u201d a wire cable, which wound around the drum of the skidder, the iron bar, with which he was performing the duty incident to his employment, was struck by a knot in the cable, caused by \u201csplicing\u201d the cable, with such violence, that plaintiff was thrown against the drum and injured. The wire cable was old, worn and defective. Its condition had been called to the attention of defendant\u2019s superintendent, who- promised to get a new cable, and instructed plaintiff to splice tbe cable and to continue to use it. Tbe cable bad been broken in several places, and bad been \u201cspliced\u201d or tied together, tbus making six or seven knots, wbicb projected two or three inches from tbe cable. One of these knots struck tbe iron bar, with wbicb plaintiff was \u201cspooling\u201d tbe cable as it wound around tbe drum. As tbe result of bis injury, plaintiff developed a rupture or hernia wbicb caused him great suffering, and greatly impaired bis ability to work and earn money.\nTbe verdict of tbe jury was as follows:\n1. Was tbe plaintiff injured by tbe negligence of tbe defendant, as alleged in tbe complaint ? Answer: Yes.\n2. Did tbe plaintiff by bis own negligence contribute to bis injury? Answer: Yes.\n3. What damages, if any, is tbe plaintiff entitled to recover? Answer: $1,250.00.\nFrom tbe judgment on this verdict, defendant appealed.\nMcKinley Edwards and Moody & Moody for plaintiff.\nAlley & Leatherwood and S. W-. Black for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0836-01",
  "first_page_order": 916,
  "last_page_order": 917
}