{
  "id": 8630373,
  "name": "W. L. GODWIN v. GRIFFIN-BLAND HOTEL COMPANY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Godwin v. Griffin-Bland Hotel Co.",
  "decision_date": "1929-01-16",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "821",
  "last_page": "822",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "196 N.C. 821"
    }
  ],
  "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": 171,
    "char_count": 1877,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.459,
    "sha256": "41ec414c18fed297254add61ed048d36121aeaf8ffa76cd197d7ac0340fb3fd8",
    "simhash": "1:a949b9a0473b973c",
    "word_count": 321
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:28:30.620798+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "W. L. GODWIN v. GRIFFIN-BLAND HOTEL COMPANY."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per CueiaM.\nThe judgment of nonsuit was entered on the theory that the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence on his own testimony, but viewing the evidence in its most favorable light for the plaintiff, the accepted position on a motion to nonsuit, we think the case should have been submitted to the jury.\nIt would serve no useful purpose to discuss the evidence, as the only question before us is whether it is sufficient to carry the case to the jury, and we think it is.\nReversed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per CueiaM."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Smith & J oyner for plaintiff.",
      "Ruarle & Fletcher for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "W. L. GODWIN v. GRIFFIN-BLAND HOTEL COMPANY.\n(Filed 16 January, 1929.)\nAppeal by plaintiff from Granmer,- J'., at April Term, 1928, of Wake.\nCivil action to recover damages for an alleged negligent injury to plaintiff\u2019s band caused by an unguarded electrically driven exhaust fan used in tbe operation of defendant\u2019s laundry located in tbe basement of tbe Sir Walter Hotel, Raleigh, N. C.\nThere is evidence tending to show that on 22 April, 1926, tbe defendant installed an- electrically driven exhaust fan in its laundry in tbe basement of the Sir Walter Hotel for use in eliminating warm or foul air from the laundry room. The fan was 36 inches in diameter, encircled by a metal rim or ring. In the center was another metal rim or disk to which the blades of the fan were attached. As finally installed, the blades were not even with the rim of the circumference, but extended out in front about four inches, which created a deceptive appearance when the fan was running or the blades were in motion. These projecting blades were unprotected, and on the first day after said fan was installed plaintiff\u2019s hand was caught in the revolving blades and severely injured.\nAt the close of plaintiff\u2019s evidence, judgment of nonsuit was entered on motion of the defendant, from which the plaintiff appeals, assigning error.\nSmith & J oyner for plaintiff.\nRuarle & Fletcher for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0821-02",
  "first_page_order": 901,
  "last_page_order": 902
}