{
  "id": 8612342,
  "name": "E. L. TUCKER v. NORFOLK AND WESTERN RAILROAD COMPANY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Tucker v. Norfolk & Western Railroad",
  "decision_date": "1927-11-09",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "496",
  "last_page": "498",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "194 N.C. 496"
    }
  ],
  "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": "258 U. S., 409",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        1479353
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/258/0409-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "183 N. C., 213",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8655832
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/183/0213-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "165 N. C., 264",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8658725
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/165/0264-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "176 N. C., 414",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8656112
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/176/0414-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "147 N. C., 553",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11270430
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/147/0553-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 324,
    "char_count": 4340,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.465,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.2481362475374985e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6094465352999344
    },
    "sha256": "2df9a1b4ccf8e619e369b8cd6316b384f533da976f14035f7a2469ad2155e050",
    "simhash": "1:18890baa70e3861d",
    "word_count": 776
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:26:29.544042+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "E. L. TUCKER v. NORFOLK AND WESTERN RAILROAD COMPANY."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Adams, J.\nIn January, 1926, the Tuckerdale Feed and Grain Company ordered a carload of fencing wire and nails which was shipped to it from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. From Fairfield, Alabama, to Bristol, Virginia, the car was carried by the Birmingham-Southern Railroad, and by the defendant from Bristol to Tuckerdale, in North Carolina. At Tuckerdale it was placed on a sidetrack and the consignee was notified of its arrival. The consignee is a partnership; the plaintiff is one of the firm. When the plaintiff and two others \u201cfetched a surge\u201d and opened the door for the purpose of unloading the car, a roll of wire weighing 152 pounds fell through the opening, struck the plaintiff on the back, and injured him. He brought suit to recover damages, alleging that the injury had been caused by the defendant\u2019s negligence. The specific charges of negligence were- (1) that the iron track supporting the door \u201cwas in a defective condition so that said door could not be opened and shut with reasonable safety,\u201d and (2) that the car was negligently loaded \u201cin that said wire and nails were so placed and loaded in said car as to render it unsafe for the consignees or their agents or employees, when unloading said car with reasonable prudence and care.\u201d\nIt was the duty of the initial carrier to exercise due care to provide a car reasonably safe and suitable for the shipment. 22 R. C. L., 932, sec. 177. Forrester v. R. R., 147 N. C., 553; Bivens v. R. R., 176 N. C., 414. Also, it is true that where a connecting carrier accepts the shipment it adopts the car provided by the initial carrier and in certain circumstances may be responsible for damages caused by its unfitness for the carriage of the goods. Lucas v. R. R., 165 N. C., 264. \u201cBut it is no part of the duty of an intermediate carrier To examine a car to see whether it is in a safe condition for any one to enter for the purpose of unloading it when it reaches its destination.\u201d 22 R. C. L., 933, sec. 178. In the ease just cited it was shown that potatoes had been shipped in an unventilated car which had previously been loaded with fertilizer. But in the present case we find no sufficient evidence that the car was not suitable for the shipment of wire and nails. The fact that special effort was necessary to open the door is not sufficient. If tbe door was defective tbe mere defect would not bave injured tbe goods or impaired tbeir value. Moreover, tbe defect could bave been discovered only by opening tbe door. Tbe plaintiff testified: \u201cI didn\u2019t detect anything tbe matter witb tbe car when I went to open tbe seal.' I noticed tbe rollers on top, and noticed that tbe door was bard to roll. I didn\u2019t notice anything particular about tbe door until I went to open it.\u201d And Roby Blevins who assisted him said: \u201cI could not say whether tbe door was in good working condition or not, it was difficult for us to open it. Of course, I could tell my ideas; it is my opinion that tbe door was crowded witb tbe wire; that tbe wire was pressing against tbe door, as it bulged out when tbe door was opened, or partly open.\u201d\nIf it be granted that tbe car was negligently loaded, tbe negligence was that of tbe initial carrier, knowledge of which could bave been acquired by tbe defendant only by breaking tbe seal and opening tbe car. Tbe record fails to disclose any emergency which required such action. See Moore v. R. R., 183 N. C., 213; Oregon R. R., etc. v. McGinn, 258 U. S., 409, 66 L. Ed., 689. Judgment\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Adams, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "R. A. Doughton, O. W. Higgins and T. 0. Bowie for plaintiff.",
      "Ira T. Johnston, W. B. Austin, F. M. Rizinus, Burton Oraige and Murray Allen for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "E. L. TUCKER v. NORFOLK AND WESTERN RAILROAD COMPANY.\n(Filed 9 November, 1927.)\nearners of Goods \u2014 Common Carriers \u2014 Railroads\u2014Negligence\u2014Damages \u2014Loading Cars \u2014 Connecting Lines of Carriage \u2014 Evidence.\nThe defective loading of a carload shipment by the initial carrier by rail does not render the delivering carrier, in a connecting line of transportation liable in damages to the consignee, who was injured thereby in unloading the same, when there is nothing in the external appearance of the car to put the delivering carrier upon notice of the defects, which were discoverable only upon the door of the car being opened.\nAppeal by plaintiff from Stach, J., at July Term, 1927, of Ashe.\nAffirmed.\nR. A. Doughton, O. W. Higgins and T. 0. Bowie for plaintiff.\nIra T. Johnston, W. B. Austin, F. M. Rizinus, Burton Oraige and Murray Allen for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0496-01",
  "first_page_order": 564,
  "last_page_order": 566
}