{
  "id": 8626034,
  "name": "KATE RITCHIE, Administrator of Efird T. Ritchie, v. HIGH POINT, THOMASVILLE and DENTON RAILROAD CO.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Ritchie v. High Point, Thomasville & Denton Railroad",
  "decision_date": "1926-12-08",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "666",
  "last_page": "668",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "192 N.C. 666"
    }
  ],
  "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": 287,
    "char_count": 5065,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.457,
    "sha256": "a1123b6f228d19fe862bb490e53adaf1416820da15b14c6ef97c5991b473f91a",
    "simhash": "1:cefeff87c218f358",
    "word_count": 874
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:52:38.190415+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "KATE RITCHIE, Administrator of Efird T. Ritchie, v. HIGH POINT, THOMASVILLE and DENTON RAILROAD CO."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "OoNNOR, J.\nDefendant, upon its appeal to this Court, relies solely upon its assignment of error based upon its exception to tbe refusal of its motion for judgment as of nonsuit, made at tbe close of all tbe evidence. C. S., 567.\nContributory negligence of tbe deceased, as found by tbe jury in its answer to tbe second issue, in failing to place flags or other signals on or beside tbe track, on which tbe car under which be was at work was standing, as notice of bis presence under tbe car, to tbe conductor or engineer on defendant\u2019s train, which struck tbe car, and thereby caused tbe injuries, does not bar a recovery in this action, if tbe death of deceased resulted, in whole or in part, from tbe negligence of an employee of defendant. Deceased at tbe time be was fatally injured was an employee of defendant, and engaged in tbe performance of bis duties; defendant is a common carrier by railroad. Tbe effect of tbe answer to tbe second issue, as tbe court correctly instructed tbe jury, was to diminish tbe damages sustained by plaintiff in proportion to tbe amount of negligence attributable to deceased; only tbe damages, thus diminished, were recoverable by plaintiff, upon tbe affirmative answer to tbe first issue. C. S., 3466; C. S., 3467.\nPlaintiff was injured on 28 October, 1925; be was at tbe time at work under a car, standing on .defendant\u2019s track at Higb Point; tbe car was struck by an engine wbicb entered upon tbe track, for tbe purpose of \u201ccoupling up\u201d tbe car, after tbe switch bad been thrown by tbe flagman. Neither tbe conductor nor tbe engineer on tbe moving train knew that deceased was, under tbe car standing on tbe track.\nTbe flagman testified that be bad seen deceased at work under tbe car ten or fifteen minutes before be threw tbe switch as directed by tbe conductor; be gave tbe signal to tbe engineer to enter upon tbe track on which tbe car under wbicb deceased was at work was standing; be did not know that deceased was then under tbe car; tbe engine entered upon tbe track, struck tbe car and thus caused tbe fatal injuries to deceased.\nThis evidence was properly submitted to tbe jury upon plaintiff\u2019s contention that it was negligence for tbe flagman, an employee of defendant, who bad within ten or fifteen minutes seen deceased at work under tbe car, to signal tbe engineer to pass over tbe switch and enter upon tbe track for tbe purpose of coupling up tbe car, without ascertaining whether or not deceased bad left a place of such grave danger; and upon her further contention that such negligence was tbe proximate cause of tbe death of plaintiff\u2019s intestate. Tbe question as to whether or not, under all tbe circumstances as tbe jury might find them to be, from tbe evidence, tbe conduct of tbe flagman was that of an ordinarily prudent man, was for tbe jury to determine, under tbe instructions of tbe court. There are no exceptions to tbe charge of tbe court, either as to negligence or as to proximate cause; tbe charge, in full, is set out in tbe transcript to this Court, and is free from error.\nThere was no error in refusing tbe motion for judgment as for non-suit. Tbe judgment is affirmed.\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "OoNNOR, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "J. A. Barringer and R. G. Strudwick for plaintiff.",
      "Robeson & Haiuorth, and Peacock, Dalton & Lyon for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "KATE RITCHIE, Administrator of Efird T. Ritchie, v. HIGH POINT, THOMASVILLE and DENTON RAILROAD CO.\n(Filed 8 December, 1926.)\n1. Negligence \u2014 Railroads\u2014Master and Servant \u2014 Employer and Employee \u2014Evidence\u2014Nonsuit\u2014Rule of Prudent Man \u2014 Questions for Jury.\nEvidence tbat tbe flagman on defendant railroad company\u2019s train saw tbe deceased at wort in tbe course of bis employment under a disconnected box-car on tbe defendant\u2019s track, and about fifteen minutes thereafter signalled tbe engineer on the train to couple it therewith wbicb resulted in death, is sufficient to take the case to tbe jury under the rule of tbe prudent man.\n2. Same \u2014 Contributory NegUgence \u2014 Damages\u2014Statutes.\nWhere there is evidence that the defendant railroad company negligently coupled a box car under which the deceased was at work to its train, causing his death, the fact that the deceased was guilty of contributory negligence in failing to place the customary signals where he was at work, does not entitle the defendant to a judgment as of nonsuit, and the amount of the verdict will be reduced under the doctrine of comparative negligence. C. S., 567.\nAppeal by defendant from Shaw, J., at April Term, 1926, of Guil-ford. No error.\nAction to recover damages for wrongful death. Deceased was an employee of defendant, a common carrier, by railroad. Tbe issues answered by tbe jury were as follows:\n1. Was tbe plaintiff\u2019s intestate killed by tbe negligence of tbe defendant, as alleged in tbe complaint? Answer: Yes.\n2. Did tbe plaintiff\u2019s intestate by bis own negligence contribute to bis death, as alleged in tbe answer? Answer: Yes.\n3. What damages, if any, is tbe plaintiff entitled to recover of tbe defendant? Answer: $8,275.00.\nFrom judgment upon tbe verdict, defendant appealed to tbe Supreme Court.\nJ. A. Barringer and R. G. Strudwick for plaintiff.\nRobeson & Haiuorth, and Peacock, Dalton & Lyon for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0666-01",
  "first_page_order": 740,
  "last_page_order": 742
}