{
  "id": 8594877,
  "name": "W. A. GODDARD v. SOUTHERN DESK COMPANY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Goddard v. Southern Desk Co.",
  "decision_date": "1930-06-16",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "22",
  "last_page": "23",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "199 N.C. 22"
    }
  ],
  "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": "169 N. C., 648",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8660914
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/169/0648-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "196 N. C., 12",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8622882
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/196/0012-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 209,
    "char_count": 2632,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.459,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.0873401050065135e-07,
      "percentile": 0.5644663067229017
    },
    "sha256": "3a818793ca50016bf590bd380ca9c2e4a0c611fb1ee6c40a4aebbd15aa7bfe9d",
    "simhash": "1:ee6f59f412fb1b0d",
    "word_count": 456
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:48:33.288027+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "W. A. GODDARD v. SOUTHERN DESK COMPANY."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Adams, J.\nId connection witb its business of manufacturing desks, opera chairs, and church pews the defendant operated an \u201cout-door sawmill.\u201d The plaintiff, one of its employees, assisted in sawing the logs and bearing the lumber from the carriage. The wheels of the carriage moved back and forth upon iron rails which rested upon and were fastened to crossties by spikes. The logs were held upon the carriage by dogs or hooks. The basic allegations of the plaintiff\u2019s suit are that when in the act of placing a log upon the carriage he put his right foot upon the end or near the end of a crosstie, slipped, and fell, and that before he could get up the carriage ran against his leg and inflicted serious and permanent injury as a result of the defendant\u2019s negligent failure to provide for the plaintiff a reasonably safe place in which to do his work. It is specifically alleged that the defendant was negligent in failing to put a floor upon the crossties; but it is not alleged that the defendant knowingly or carelessly employed incompetent fellow-servants.\nThe two exceptions to the exclusion of evidence are so clearly untenable as to require no discussion; and the judgment of nonsuit must be affirmed upon the general principle that an employer\u2019s duty to provide for an employee a reasonably safe place in which to work does not apply to \u201cordinary everyday conditions\u201d where the situation is readily observable and there is no reason to suppose that injury will result. Smith v. Ritch, 196 N. C., 12; Bunn v. R. R., 169 N. C., 648. According to the allegation and the evidence the plaintiff\u2019s fall was due to the fact that his foot slipped from the end of a crosstie. Judgment is\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Adams, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "D. L. Bussell for plaintiff.",
      "Thos. P. Pruitt and E. B. Cline for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "W. A. GODDARD v. SOUTHERN DESK COMPANY.\n(Filed 16 June, 1930.)\nMaster and Servant O b \u2014 In this case held: evidence failed to show negligent failure of employer to provide reasonably safe place to work.\nWhere in an action to recover damages for a personal injury sustained by the plaintiff, the evidence tends only to show that the plaintiff\u2019s foot slipped upon a cross-tie while employed in loading a log upon a carriage operated on rails, causing the injury in suit: Held,, a judgment as of non-suit was properly entered under the general principle that an employer\u2019s duty to provide an employee a safe place to work does not apply to \u201cordinary, everyday conditions\u201d readily observable, where there is no reason to suppose that injury would result.\nAppeal by plaintiff from a judgment of nonsuit by Stack, J., at January Term, 1930, of Catawba.\nAffirmed.\nD. L. Bussell for plaintiff.\nThos. P. Pruitt and E. B. Cline for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0022-01",
  "first_page_order": 90,
  "last_page_order": 91
}