{
  "id": 2217745,
  "name": "SOLOMON MALOOF v. FLOYD MOTOR COMPANY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Maloof v. Floyd Motor Co.",
  "decision_date": "1927-06-10",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "857",
  "last_page": "858",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "193 N.C. 857"
    }
  ],
  "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": "179 N. C., 231",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8655544
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/179/0231-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "179 N. C., 231",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8655544
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/179/0231-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 155,
    "char_count": 1587,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.459,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.07753019577589272
    },
    "sha256": "29aeb05b3bed2d2e9e4f9f66c679f20b7995c8a8a0256d086e45c0398f054396",
    "simhash": "1:32c00dd7393b332f",
    "word_count": 284
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:08:43.639996+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "SOLOMON MALOOF v. FLOYD MOTOR COMPANY."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nThe essential facts of the present case are the same as appear in the case of Beck v. Wilkins, 179 N. C., 231, and the principles of law announced in that ease are decisive of this controversy.\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "J. N. Moody and Thurman Leatherwood for plaintiff.",
      "S. IF. Black and T. JD. Bryson for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "SOLOMON MALOOF v. FLOYD MOTOR COMPANY.\n(Filed 10 June, 1927.)\nEvidence \u2014 Bailment\u2014Fires\u2014Negligence\u2014Burden of Proof.\nWhere an automobile is kept in a garage for repair and has been destroyed by fire, the burden is on the defendant to show that it was not negligent to rebut the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, under the decision in Beck v. Wilkins, 179 N. C., 231.\nCivil action, before Harding, J., at October-Novemb\u2019er Term, 1926, of Swain.\nThe plaintiff instituted an action against the defendant for damages for the loss of his automobile, which was burned while in the possession of the defendant. There was no evidence as to the origin of the fire which injured plaintiff\u2019s automobile.\nThe narrative of the occurrence was thus expressed by one of the witnesses for the defendant: \u201cThe first intimation I heard of the fire, I was downstairs in the office and heard an explosion of some kind, a noise, and I immediately ran upstairs and run up there and found a flame in the room. I don\u2019t know what was the cause of the fire. I have never been able to ascertain the cause of the fire. I have been trying to find out.\u201d\nIssues of negligence and damage were submitted to the jury, and $300 was awarded to the plaintiff.\nFrom judgment upon the verdict, the defendant appealed.\nJ. N. Moody and Thurman Leatherwood for plaintiff.\nS. IF. Black and T. JD. Bryson for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0857-01",
  "first_page_order": 935,
  "last_page_order": 936
}