{
  "id": 8621440,
  "name": "ADA LAMBETH v. R. J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Lambeth v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.",
  "decision_date": "1927-12-14",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "814",
  "last_page": "814",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "194 N.C. 814"
    }
  ],
  "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": 123,
    "char_count": 1248,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.435,
    "sha256": "ae404933d81e3746392706861dab1b9d95e8d40b8ba060c4fa4961e0163e2af3",
    "simhash": "1:16cd5b5a0dfe232d",
    "word_count": 218
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:26:29.544042+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "ADA LAMBETH v. R. J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Pee CuRIam.\nThe record presents issues of fact only. These issues were submitted to the jury upon a correct charge to which no exception was taken. A perusal of the case convinces us .that no error was committed in the trial, and the judgment is affirmed.\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Pee CuRIam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Wallace & Wells and Phillips & Bowers for plain&jf.",
      "Paper & Paper and Earle McMichael for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "ADA LAMBETH v. R. J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY.\n(Filed 14 December, 1927.)\nCivil action-, before Hatrding, J., at July Terra, 1927, of DavidsON.\nTbe testimony tended to show that the plaintiff was employed by the defendant to feed and operate a cigarette packing machine and that she was required to \u201ckeep it clean and brush it off at 4 o\u2019clock and keep it clean from cigarettes.\u201d The plaintiff testified that she was never told to stop the machine or how to stop it when it became necessary to clean it. That in attempting to clean the machine while in motion a cup on the machine hit her hand and knocked it in the machine, cutting off the end of her right index finger.\nIssues of negligence, contributory negligence, assumption of risk and damages were submitted to the jury and answered in favor of plaintiff.\nFrom judgment of the court upon the verdict the defendant appealed.\nWallace & Wells and Phillips & Bowers for plain&jf.\nPaper & Paper and Earle McMichael for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0814-01",
  "first_page_order": 882,
  "last_page_order": 882
}