{
  "id": 8607938,
  "name": "MANLY TAYLOR, Administrator of Willis Taylor. Deceased, v. ROWLAND LUMBER COMPANY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Taylor v. Rowland Lumber Co.",
  "decision_date": "1927-10-12",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "354",
  "last_page": "356",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "194 N.C. 354"
    }
  ],
  "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., 722",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8631258
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/191/0722-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "191 N. C., 404",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8629513
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/191/0404-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "167 N. C., 207",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 418,
    "char_count": 7076,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.459,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.2071522316552046
    },
    "sha256": "03e1f3536558f167f5653ee3223ce825dcbb53aa52dce76edbc22c07b487fa34",
    "simhash": "1:08525cd10345c1c3",
    "word_count": 1269
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:26:29.544042+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "MANLY TAYLOR, Administrator of Willis Taylor. Deceased, v. ROWLAND LUMBER COMPANY."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "BhogdeN, J.\nThe evidence of the plaintiff does not disclose how the killing of plaintiff\u2019s intestate occurred. Only two theories arise from plaintiff\u2019s evidence as to what happened:'\nFirst, that the plaintiff\u2019s intestate fell from the rear of a backing train upon the track; second, that plaintiff\u2019s intestate jumped from the rear of the backing train to the track, stumbled, fell, and was run over by the train. There is no proof whatever that there was any defect in the appliance used at the time, -causing plaintiff\u2019s ifatestate to fall, nor is there any proof of any negligent movement or jerki-ng of the train which precipitated him therefrom. The evidence, therefore, cannot support the first theory. Upon the other hand, if plaintiff\u2019s intestate, in the discharge of his duty, jumped from the moving train upon the track and lost his balance, then the undisputed evidence discloses that he did so in plain and express violation of orders and instructions given him by his superiors.\nThere is a suggestion that the cross-ties were piled too high on the car from which plaintiff\u2019s intestate jumped or fell, but the evidence further discloses that the cross-ties were not piled higher than usual. In any event plaintiff\u2019s intestate was first seen in the center of the track, where it would be impossible for the engineer to have discovered his perilous situation.\nIn the final analysis, the evidence presents mere speculation and no more. \u201cThe rule is well settled that if there be no evidence or if the evidence be so slight as not reasonably to warrant the inference of the fact in issue, or furnish more than material for mere conjecture, the court will not leave the issue to be passed on by the jury.\u201d Seagrove v. Winston, 167 N. C., 207; S. v. Martin, 191 N. C., 404. Referring to this rule in Poovey v. Sugar Co., 191 N. C., 722, this Court says r \u201cThis rule is both just and sound. Any other interpretation of the law would unloose a jury to wander aimlessly in the fields of speculation.\u201d\nWe hold therefore that the motion for nonsuit, duly made by the defendant, should have been allowed.\nReversed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "BhogdeN, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Sutton & Greene for plaintiff.",
      "Moore & Dunn for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "MANLY TAYLOR, Administrator of Willis Taylor. Deceased, v. ROWLAND LUMBER COMPANY.\n(Filed 12 October, 1927.)\n1. Negligence \u2014 Master and Servant \u2014 Employer and Employee \u2014 Evidence \u2014Speculation\u2014Verdict\u2014Reversal\u2014Railroads\u2014Tramroads.\nWhere evidence tends only to show that the plaintiff\u2019s intestate was employed as a fireman on the defendant lumber company\u2019s tramway steam locomotive hauling cross-ties on flat cars attached, loaded in the customary manner, and was seen immediately before the injury on the ground in front of the slowly backing train too late to stop the train that killed him, and there is no evidence of defects in equipment or in the conduct of the defendant\u2019s other employees operating the train that would tend to show any negligence on the defendant\u2019s part: Held, the evidence as to defendant\u2019s negligence is too uncertain, vague, speculative and remote to sustain a verdict of damages in the plaintiff\u2019s favor.\n2. Same \u2014 Violation of Employer\u2019s Rule for Safety.\nWhere the evidence only tends to show that the defendant company\u2019s engineer on its tram locomotive came to his death by reason alone of his violating a rule of the company adhered to by the defendant not to jump from a running train, it is insufficient to take the case to the jury, there being no further evidence of the defendant\u2019s negligence in causing the death.\nCivil actioN, before Grarwner, J., at Spring Term, 1927, of JoNEs.\nThe evidence tended to show that the plaintiff, a young colored man about 22 years old, was employed as fireman on a tram-road engine owned by the defendant. It was his duty to throw the switch. The engine and one car coupled to it, loaded with cross-ties, had pulled up on a spur-track to let another train pass. After the train passed the engine and car of cross-ties were backed out of the spur-track, and it became necessary for plaintiff\u2019s intestate to throw the switch.\nWitness for plaintiff testified: \u201cI told Willie Taylor to shift out, him and the engineer, and to let the other train go by, and they let the other train go by, and when they went by he got off for something, and when I saw him he was on his hands and knees. I didn\u2019t see him when be got off. Some of them said he jumped down ahead of it, and the train was running by and he fell. I saw him when he raised up, and the drawhead of the ear hit him in the back and the sand bolster run over him. It was on a side-track, a switch from the main line. . . . I saw him on his hands and knees, and I saw a sand bolster run over him. The train was backing at that time. The back car had a few ties on it; they were loaded crossways of the car. ... I don\u2019t know how high the ties were. I don\u2019t think they were very high. We didn\u2019t have but eight rails on the car at the time, and that would not take many ties. . . . The train was going about three or four miles an hour when he was killed. . . . The ties were not as high as we ordinarily have them, and they had no effect on his being hurt. . . . The cross-ties were loaded all right. When I first saw the boy he was on his hands and knees just off the car, and the ear was on him so quick that nobody could do anything. We flagged the train as quick as we could, but the bumper struck him as soon as he fell off. ... It was my instruction that nobody should get off those cars while the engine was moving, and Willie Taylor knew it. . . . It was against orders for a man to get on or off a car in motion. Willie Taylor had been working there two or three months, and he took orders and instructions from me.\u201d\nAnother witness for plaintiff testified: \u201cI can\u2019t say I saw him killed, because I didn\u2019t see him fall off, and neither did I see him because I was working. When I saw him, I said, \u2018Lord have mercy,\u2019 and I jumped out there and said: \u2018The ties is piled so high the engineer couldn\u2019t see that man.\u2019 . . . The car dragged the body about four feet before it stopped. . . . When I first saw Willie the car was right on him. The engine stopped in about four feet, which was just as quick as it could possibly have stopped. The ties were not piled up any higher than usual. ... It was against the orders of Mr. Ever-ton for us to get on or off the train while it was moving, and everybody had those orders.\u201d\nThis was substantially all the evidence for plaintiff.\nThe issues and answers of the jury thereto were as follows:\n1. Was the plaintiff\u2019s intestate, at the time of his injury, employed and working for Geo. L. Everton? A. Yes.\n2. Was the said Geo. L. Everton an independent contractor, as alleged in the answer? A. No.\n3. Was the plaintiff\u2019s intestate killed by the negligence of the defendant, as alleged? A. Yes.\n4. Was the plaintiff\u2019s intestate guilty of contributory negligence, as alleged in the answer? A. No.\n5. What damage, if any, is the plaintiff entitled to recover of the defendant? A. $750.\nFrom judgment upon the verdict the defendant appealed.\nSutton & Greene for plaintiff.\nMoore & Dunn for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0354-01",
  "first_page_order": 422,
  "last_page_order": 424
}