{
  "id": 8622399,
  "name": "G. H. JORDAN, Administrator, v. SEABOARD AIR LINE RAILWAY COMPANY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Jordan v. Seaboard Air Line Railway Co.",
  "decision_date": "1926-10-20",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "375",
  "last_page": "376",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "192 N.C. 375"
    }
  ],
  "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": "191 N. C., 404",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8629513
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/191/0404-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "182 N. C., 790",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "167 N. C., 207",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "81 N. C., 245",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8688248
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/81/0245-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "128 N. C., 229",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8659479
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/128/0229-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "125 N. C., 370",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11273931
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/125/0370-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 238,
    "char_count": 3001,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.489,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.20721922397792303
    },
    "sha256": "a620903f725ca6088f3e03c69f5e85c84ff6b6e531d8e887da49210fc2d9db0c",
    "simhash": "1:b054442013d78907",
    "word_count": 537
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:52:38.190415+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "G. H. JORDAN, Administrator, v. SEABOARD AIR LINE RAILWAY COMPANY."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per CuriaM.\nThe complaint specifies four el\u00e9ments of negligence, to wit: First, that the defendant, for several years, had permitted children to play on or near the main line, at Cary, at a place where the signal pipes were located; second, tbat tbe defendant did not stop its train or reduce its speed so as to prevent tbe killing of tbe child; third, tbat tbe defendant\u2019s employees in charge of tbe train did not keep a proper lookout; fourth, tbat tbe defendant failed to remove tbe child from tbe track or warn or notify tbe parents of tbe danger.\nUpon a careful examination and scrutiny of tbe entire testimony tbe Court is of tbe opinion tbat there was no evidence of negligence warranting submission of tbe case to tbe jury. All tbe evidence\u2018was to tbe effect tbat tbe child was not injured at tbe pipes or while on tbe pipes, but at least a car-length from tbe pipes. So tbat, if tbe pipes bad constituted an \u201cattraction to small children,\u201d tbe plaintiff\u2019s intestate was not injured on tbe pipes or by reason of tbe existence or location thereof.\nTbe plaintiff relies upon tbe cases of Powell v. R. R., 125 N. C., 370, and Whitesides v. R. R., 128 N. C., 229. In both of these cases there was evidence tbat tbe injured party was on tbe track at tbe time of receiving tbe injury complained of. In tbe Whitesides case tbe defendant admitted in its answer tbat tbe plaintiff was injured on tbe trestle.\nThere is no evidence in this record tbat tbe child was on tbe track at tbe time tbe train passed. There was no physical evidence on or about tbe engine showing tbat tbe child bad been struck by it, and tbe last time tbe child was seen before tbe injury shows \u201cbe bad moved\u201d and \u201cwas standing along by tbe edge of tbe ballast line, five feet from tbe rail.\u201d\nTbe evidence, viewed in its most favorable light to plaintiff, creates no more than a suspicion, or conjecture, which is not sufficient to warrant a submission of tbe question to a jury. Brown v. Kinsey, 81 N. C., 245; Seagrove v. Winston, 167 N. C., 207; S. v. Prince, 182 N. C., 790; S. v. Martin, 191 N. C., 404. Tbe judment as rendered is\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per CuriaM."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Douglass & Douglass for plaintiff.",
      "Murray Allen for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "G. H. JORDAN, Administrator, v. SEABOARD AIR LINE RAILWAY COMPANY.\n(Filed 20 October, 1926.)\n1. Negligence \u2014 Evidence\u2014Attractive Nuisance.\nIn the absence of evidence tending to show that a child was not injured at the place of an \u201cattractive nuisance\u201d alleged to have caused the injury in suit, it was insufficient to be submitted to the jury.\n2. Evidence \u2014 Conjecture.\nEvidence is insufficient to take the case to the jury Which merely raises a conjecture or suspicion.\nCivil ACTION, tried before Barnhill, J., and a jury, at April Term, 1926, of WaKE.\nThis action was instituted to recover damages for the wrongful death of plaintiff\u2019s intestate, James Jordan, who was a bright boy of the age of five and a half years. At the conclusion of all the testimony judgment of nonsuit was entered and the plaintiff appealed.\nDouglass & Douglass for plaintiff.\nMurray Allen for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0375-01",
  "first_page_order": 449,
  "last_page_order": 450
}