{
  "id": 8612119,
  "name": "MARTHA HAWKINS, Administratrix of the Estate of SID HAWKINS, Deceased, v. ROWLAND LUMBER COMPANY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Hawkins v. Rowland Lumber Co.",
  "decision_date": "1930-03-12",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "475",
  "last_page": "476",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "198 N.C. 475"
    }
  ],
  "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., 250",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8602798
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/194/0250-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "194 N. C., 141",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8599631
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/194/0141-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "193 N. C., 138",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2217882
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/193/0138-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 205,
    "char_count": 2671,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.477,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 7.168668855370785e-08,
      "percentile": 0.42939607675968755
    },
    "sha256": "b8b4ee47d3b50e7e15fada44acba06c8ea0448d198dff8b501477478cad071cc",
    "simhash": "1:4aa784ee7a34bb52",
    "word_count": 460
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:53:28.956258+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "MARTHA HAWKINS, Administratrix of the Estate of SID HAWKINS, Deceased, v. ROWLAND LUMBER COMPANY."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Pee Cukiam.\nThe defendant at the close of plaintiff\u2019s evidence and at the close of all the evidence made motions for judgment as in case of nonsuit, under C. S., 567. The court below overruled the motions, and in this we see no error. Defendant also requested certain prayers for instruction; the court below refused these, and in this we think the court correct.\nTbe charge of tbe court below is not in tbe record. Tbe presumption is tbat tbe court below charged tbe law applicable to tbe facts.\nAs to negligence in not giving signals, see Farr v. Power Co., ante, p. 247.\nTbe defendant was a logging road and tbe fellow-servant doctrine has no application \u2014 contributory negligence no bar, but mitigates damages. See C. S., 160, 3465, 3467, 3470; Stewart v. Blackwood Lumber Co., 193 N. C., 138; Brooks v. Suncrest Lumber Co., 194 N. C., 141. We think tbe case in many respects similar to Lilley v. Cooperage Co., 194 N. C., 250. We find\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Pee Cukiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Ernest M. Green and W. B. R. Gui\u00f3n for plaintiff.",
      "Moore & Dunn for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "MARTHA HAWKINS, Administratrix of the Estate of SID HAWKINS, Deceased, v. ROWLAND LUMBER COMPANY.\n(Filed 12 March, 1930.)\n1. Appeal and Error E lb \u2014 Charge of lower court is presumed correct when it is not set out in the record.\nThe charge of the trial court to the jury is presumed to be correct on appeal when it is not set out in the record.\n2. Master and Servant E a \u2014 Federal employer\u2019s Liability Act applies to logging roads.\nWhere the defendant in an action to recover damages for a wrongful death is a logging road, the fellow-servant rule does not apply, and contributory negligence is considered in mitigation of damages by. the jury.\nAppeal by defendant from Midyette, J., and a jury, at October Term, 1929, of CraveN. No error.\nThis is an action for actionable negligence brought by plaintiff, for the death of her intestate, against defendant.\nThe issues submitted to the jury and their answers thereto were as follows:\n\u201c1. Was Walter Lindsay an independent contractor of the Rowland Lumber Company, and was plaintiff\u2019s intestate in the employ of said independent contractor at the time of his injury and death ? Answer: No.\n2. Was the plaintiff\u2019s intestate killed by the negligence of the Rowland Lumber Company, as alleged in the complaint? Answer: Yes.\n3. Did the plaintiff\u2019s intestate by his own negligence contribute to his injury and death, as alleged in the answer? Answer: No.\n4. What damage, if any, is the plaintiff entitled to recover of the defendant? Answer: $1,000.\u201d\nThe court below rendered judgment on the verdict. The/defendant made numerous exceptions and assignments of error and appealed to the Supreme Court.\nErnest M. Green and W. B. R. Gui\u00f3n for plaintiff.\nMoore & Dunn for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0475-01",
  "first_page_order": 545,
  "last_page_order": 546
}