{
  "id": 8630574,
  "name": "L. N. SASSER v. TOLAR-HART HOLT MILLS, Inc.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Sasser v. Tolar-Hart Holt Mills, Inc.",
  "decision_date": "1929-10-23",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "603",
  "last_page": "603",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "197 N.C. 603"
    }
  ],
  "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": 168,
    "char_count": 2148,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.451,
    "sha256": "cfdf2a001b73e4a5c725fb57cf4464f83b866dbe6bbc00f618c9b45d7de7a6fa",
    "simhash": "1:7874259594c84771",
    "word_count": 374
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:27:44.780576+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "L. N. SASSER v. TOLAR-HART HOLT MILLS, Inc."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nThis is an action for the recovery of damages for personal injury. The plaintiff undertook to clean a lapping machine while the machinery was in motion, in consequence of which his left hand was \u2022caught in a revolving screen and severely injured. \u25a0 His action was dismissed as in case of nonsuit and he appealed.\nIt was incumbent upon the plaintiff to establish the defendant\u2019s negligence as the proximate cause of his injury. The mere fact of his injury does not raise a presumption of negligence, and there is no evidence that the defendant required the plaintiff to remove the trash or waste cotton while the machinery was moving. The plaintiff seems to have acted upon his own initiative. He testified: \u201cI saw this piece of cotton in the screen. I seen the bulk of it. I knew that there were revolving spokes in there at that place. I knew that unless I stopped the machine that the screen with its spokes was turning. I knew that if I put my hand in between the spokes'and left it there long enough that one of those spokes was bound to cut my hand, but I didn\u2019t intend to let it stay. It cut me anyway.\u201d\nAn examination of the record discloses no reversible error either in the rejection of evidence or in the judgment dismissing the action.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "JSfinwcks & Nimocks and Robinson, Downing & Downing for plaintiff.",
      "Oates & Herring for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "L. N. SASSER v. TOLAR-HART HOLT MILLS, Inc.\n(Filed 23 October. 1929.)\nMaster and Servant O a \u2014 Employee must establish negligence of employer as proximate cause of injury.\n\u2022 Where an employee at a cotton mill chooses of his own volition to run his hand into a revolving screen to clean it of a piece of cotton, knowing that it would be injured, except for his quickness in withdrawing it, and that the machinery should have been first stopped: Held, there is no presumption of negligence on the part of the defendant from the fact of injury, and the plaintiff must establish negligence of the defendant as the proximate cause of his injury, and in this case the action was properly dismissed.\n'Appeal by plaintiff from Crammer, J., at February Term, 1929, of Cumbekland.\nAffirmed.\nJSfinwcks & Nimocks and Robinson, Downing & Downing for plaintiff.\nOates & Herring for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0603-01",
  "first_page_order": 667,
  "last_page_order": 667
}