{
  "id": 8631356,
  "name": "A. L. THOMPSON v. NORTH CAROLINA RAILROAD COMPANY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Thompson v. North Carolina Railroad",
  "decision_date": "1928-05-23",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "663",
  "last_page": "664",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "195 N.C. 663"
    }
  ],
  "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": "194 N. C., 696",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8616637
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/194/0696-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "47 S. E., 421",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "135 N. C., 204",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8658815
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/135/0204-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "59 S. E., 1022",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "146 N. C., 429",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11271642
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/146/0429-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "123 S. E., 1",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "187 N. C., 786",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8655120
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/187/0786-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 322,
    "char_count": 3871,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.514,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.1391920918692354e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7668894981908212
    },
    "sha256": "6d3185864e2d15da8d282aa675ca1e697cfa0ca2501c8542d446d5c2e4ca1ac2",
    "simhash": "1:66785ecace680ded",
    "word_count": 653
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:22:12.241767+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "A. L. THOMPSON v. NORTH CAROLINA RAILROAD COMPANY."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Stacy, C. J.,\nafter stating the case: The negligence alleged is that the defendant\u2019s lessee, the Southern Railway Company, failed to comply with the ordinances of the city of Greensboro, (1) requiring a flagman to be stationed at Jackson Street crossing, (2) requiring \u201cthat every railroad company shall keep the street crossing sufficiently lighted to enable the public to see moving trains after dark,\u201d (3) providing that \u201cno railroad engine or train shall run or be propelled at a greater rate of speed than twenty miles an hour within the city,\u201d (4) providing that \u201cit shall be unlawful for any railroad company to allow two engines or trains to cross any street in the city at the same time from opposite directions,\u201d (5) providing that all railroad companies, having tracks in the city of Greensboro; shall board the grade crossings with oak planks of the thickness of the height of the rail.\nA number of interesting questions are debated on brief, but a careful perusal of the record leaves us with the impression that under the decisions in Ballinger v. Thomas, ante, 517, Lineberry v. R. R., 187 N. C., 786, 123 S. E., 1, Harton v. Telephone Co., 146 N. C., 429, 59 S. E., 1022, and the principles they illustrate, the evidence offered on the bearing, taken in its most favorable light for the plaintiff, fails to show any tort liability on the part of the defendant, or its lessee, for which the plaintiff may recover in damages. For this reason, we think the defendant\u2019s motion for judgment as of nonsuit should have been allowed.\nOne may be ever so negligent, but unless such negligence proximately produces injury to another, no action for damages can be maintained therefor. Drum v. Miller, 135 N. C., 204, 47 S. E., 421. In other words, to constitute actionable negligence, there must be both negligence \u2014 the breach of some duty owed to the plaintiff \u2014 and injury proximately resulting therefrom. Hurt v. Power Co., 194 N. C., 696.\nReversed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Stacy, C. J.,"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "II. L. Koontz and Banks E. Mebane for plaintiff.",
      "Eobgood, Alderman & Vinson for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "A. L. THOMPSON v. NORTH CAROLINA RAILROAD COMPANY.\n(Filed 23 May, 1928.)\nNegligence \u2014 Proximate Cause \u2014 Negligence to Be Actionable Must Be Proximate Cause \u2014 Nonsuit.\nNegligence is not actionable unless it causes, or contributes in causing the injury in suit, and where tbe evidence discloses \u2022 that it was independently and entirely caused by an act of a third person, a judgment as of nonsuit should be entered thereon.\nAppeal by defendant from Harding, J., at November Term, 1927, of Guilford.\nCivil action to recover for a personal injury which necessitated the amputation of plaintiff\u2019s leg about six inches below the knee, alleged to have been caused by the negligence of the defendant\u2019s lessee, the Southern Railway Company.\nThe injury occurred about 3 :15 a. m. on the morning of 8 July, 1924, while the plaintiff was sitting in his Hup roadster at the Jackson Street railroad crossing in the city of Greensboro, N. C., about 20 or 25 feet from the defendant\u2019s tracks, waiting for two freight trains to pass, one going northward on the north-bound track and the other running southward on the south-bound track, when a truck driven along the street by some unknown person, bit tbe rear of plaintiff\u2019s automobile, pushed bis car against tbe moving train, and as plaintiff jumped from bis roadster, in an effort to save bimself, one of bis legs was caugbt beneath tbe wheels of tbe moving train and crushed to such an extent as to require amputation. Tbe driver of tbe truck was never apprehended.\nTbe usual issues of negligence, contributory negligence and damages were submitted to tbe jury and answered in favor of plaintiff. From tbe judgment entered thereon, tbe defendant appeals, assigning errors, relying chiefly upon its exception to tbe refusal of tbe court to grant its motion for judgment as of nonsuit.\nII. L. Koontz and Banks E. Mebane for plaintiff.\nEobgood, Alderman & Vinson for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0663-01",
  "first_page_order": 735,
  "last_page_order": 736
}