{
  "id": 8611130,
  "name": "H. J. SCOGGINS et al., Administrators of HENRY J. SCOGGINS, Deceased, v. SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY et al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Scoggins v. Southern Railway Co.",
  "decision_date": "1930-10-22",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "631",
  "last_page": "632",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "199 N.C. 631"
    }
  ],
  "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": "141 S. E., 350",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "195 N. C., 67",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8627749
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/195/0067-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 210,
    "char_count": 3438,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.485,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 8.283159945918396e-08,
      "percentile": 0.47915708599227214
    },
    "sha256": "59d262c34cfc1b0b61c95f7719f90c289c432611b83e46c633c9b5ad00764e8e",
    "simhash": "1:bf4b6811ba6db8b5",
    "word_count": 575
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:48:33.288027+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "H. J. SCOGGINS et al., Administrators of HENRY J. SCOGGINS, Deceased, v. SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY et al."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per CuRiAM.\nDefendants\u2019 contention on their appeal to this Court, that there was error in the refusal of the trial court to allow their motion for judgment as of nonsuit, for that all the evidence showed that plaintiffs\u2019 intestate, by his own negligence contributed to the injuries which resulted in his death, cannot be sustained.\nThis case is readily distinguishable from Pope v. R. R., 195 N. C., 67, 141 S. E., 350, and cases cited in support of the reversal of the judgment in that ease. There was evidence tending to show that plaintiffs\u2019 intestate, before entering upon the crossing and immediately before he was struck by defendants\u2019 train, stopped, looked and listened for an approaching train; and that his failure to see the train approaching on the main line was due to the negligence of the defendants, in parking on the pass track a solid line of box-cars which extended from the crossing a distance of nearly a mile in the direction from which the train was approaching the crossing. There was evidence tending to show that this train was running at a rate of speed in excess of that prescribed by an ordinance of the city of Durham, and that no warning by the ringing of a bell or otherwise was given of the approach of the train. There was evidence on behalf of the defendants tending to contradict the evidence for the plaintiffs; All the evidence, pertinent to the issue involving contributory negligence, was submitted to the jury under a charge to which there was no exception. It is conceded that there was evidence tending to show that the death of plaintiffs\u2019 intestate was caused by the negligence of the defendants, as alleged in the complaint.\nThere was no error in the ruling of the trial judge on defendants\u2019 motion for judgment as of nonsuit at the close of all the evidence. The judgment is affirmed.\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per CuRiAM."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Long & Young'for plaintiffs.",
      "McLendon & Sedrich for defendants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "H. J. SCOGGINS et al., Administrators of HENRY J. SCOGGINS, Deceased, v. SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY et al.\n(Filed 22 October, 1930.)\nRailroads D 1) \u2014 -Evidence of contributory negligence of intestate in crossing defendant\u2019s tracks held insufficient to bar recovery as matter of law.\nIn an action for damages against a railroad company for the negligent killing of plaintiff\u2019s intestate, struck by defendant\u2019s train as he was endeavoring to cross defendant\u2019s tracks at a grade crossing in a city, evidence tending to show that the train approached without warning and that the intestate stopped, looked and listened before going on the track and was prevented from seeing the approaching train by a string of box cars on another of defendant\u2019s tracks, is sufficient to resist defendant\u2019s motion as of nonsuit upon the issue of contributory negligence.\nAppeal by defendants from Johnson, Special Judge, at June Term, 1930, of Dueham.\nNo error.\nThis is an action to recover damages for the wrongful death of plaintiffs\u2019 intestate, who was struck and killed by one of defendants\u2019 trains at a public crossing in the city of Durham.\nThe issues submitted to the jury, involving the negligence of the defendant, and the contributory negligence of the deceased, as the proximate cause of the death of plaintiffs\u2019 intestate, were answered in accordance with the contentions of plaintiffs.\nFrom judgment that plaintiffs recover of the defendants the sum of $2,000, the damages assessed by the jury, the defendants appealed to the Supreme Court.\nLong & Young'for plaintiffs.\nMcLendon & Sedrich for defendants."
  },
  "file_name": "0631-01",
  "first_page_order": 699,
  "last_page_order": 700
}