{
  "id": 8626967,
  "name": "JIM WATSON v. SYLVA TANNING COMPANY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Watson v. Sylva Tanning Co.",
  "decision_date": "1926-12-31",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "790",
  "last_page": "791",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "192 N.C. 790"
    }
  ],
  "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": "190 N. C., 844",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8616209
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/190/0844-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 217,
    "char_count": 3100,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.467,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 7.483908531573205e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4456767556718558
    },
    "sha256": "dd7266eb2d913120234decb701abf88030caebf6d7774346151a577619ebd00d",
    "simhash": "1:c4cc29e9980be5d9",
    "word_count": 546
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:52:38.190415+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "JIM WATSON v. SYLVA TANNING COMPANY."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Clarkson, J.\nThis case was here before on appeal by defendant and a new trial awarded on account of error in the court below for failure to comply with C. S., 564. See 190 N. C., p. 840.\nIn the present appeal, assignments of error are in regard to erroneous admission of evidence. We think the evidence was not prejudicial, from the cross-examination and other evidence of similar import brought out and introduced by defendant, and the case of Cook v. Mebane, 191 N. C., p. 7, and Hanes v. Utilities Co., ibid., p. 19, and cases cited, approbate.\nAnother contention of defendant is that the charge of the court below makes it the duty of the employer, in the exercise of ordinary care, to furnish the employee a safe place to work, and that this is error; that the place must be reasonably safe and not safe, we cannot so hold. The court charged as follows: \u201cThe court further charges it is the duty of the master to use reasonable care and prudence in providing a safe place for his servant to work, and reasonably safe tools and appliances with which to do and perform his work.\u201d\nAs to the degree of care that the employer owes his employee, we think the charge sustained by Riggs v. Mfg. Co., 190 N. C., p. 258. This Court said: \u201cIt is well settled in this State That an employer of labor in the exercise of reasonable care, must provide for his employees a safe place to do their work and supply them with machinery, implements and appliances, safe and suitable for the work in which they are engaged, and to keep such implements, etc., in safe condition as far as this can be done by the exercise of proper care and supervision/ \u201d citing numerous authorities. Some of the decisions use the words \u201csafe place\u201d or \u201creasonably safe place\u201d and \u201csafe appliances, tools,\u201d etc., or \u201creasonably safe appliances, tools,\u201d etc., but this it not the error. All the cases hold that these duties must be complied with in the exercise of reasonable or ordinary care, or in the use of ordinary care and prudence; \u201csuch care as a prudent man would exercise under similar circumstances.\u201d The error, as held in all the decisions, is the omission of this qualifying phrase. Lindsey v. Lumber Co., 190 N. C., 844; Clinard v. Electric Co., ante, 736.\nFrom a perusal of the record, we are of the opinion that the action was carefully tried by the court below and in law we can find\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Clarkson, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Walter F. Moore and Sutton & Stillwell for plaintiff.",
      "Alley & Alley for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "JIM WATSON v. SYLVA TANNING COMPANY.\n(Filed 31 December, 1926.)\n1. Evidence \u2014 Trials\u2014Appeal and Error.\nEvidence erroneously admitted on direct examination is not reversible error when again brought out on cross-examination, or evidence of the same character is admitted without objection from the appellant.\n2. Negligence \u2014 Master and Servant \u2014 Employer and Employee \u2014 Reasonable Care \u2014 Safe Place to Work.\nIt is the duty of the employer to furnish his employee in the exercise of reasonable care, a safe place to work, etc., in the course of his employment.\nAppeal from Oglesby, J., and a jury, at February Term, 1926, of JacksoN. No error.\nWalter F. Moore and Sutton & Stillwell for plaintiff.\nAlley & Alley for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0790-01",
  "first_page_order": 864,
  "last_page_order": 865
}