{
  "id": 8624679,
  "name": "LESTER MATTHEWS v. BLACKWOOD LUMBER COMPANY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Matthews v. Blackwood Lumber Co.",
  "decision_date": "1933-06-14",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "725",
  "last_page": "726",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "204 N.C. 725"
    }
  ],
  "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": "158 S. E., 478",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "200 N. C., 768",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8626161
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/200/0768-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "136 S. E., 723",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "193 N. C., 262",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2217781
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/193/0262-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "70 S. E., 742",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "154 N. C., 399",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8652505
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/154/0399-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "114 S. E., 817",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "184 N. C., 562",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11271379
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/184/0562-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 190,
    "char_count": 2065,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.46,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.20723775787700363
    },
    "sha256": "cbf1b389dcacab4aa1ece8e25a77bce2985184e844579498156ef17e8bce3dfa",
    "simhash": "1:ed62af090228a7e3",
    "word_count": 350
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:38:28.108315+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "LESTER MATTHEWS v. BLACKWOOD LUMBER COMPANY."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Stacy, C. J.\nThe validity of the trial is assailed upon the ground that the judge, in charging the'jury, used the technical expressions \u201cproximate cause,\u201d \u201cburden of proof,\u201d \u201cgreater weight of the evidence,\u201d without explaining their meaning in language which the jury could understand.\nThe case is a very simple one, both as to the law and the facts. The plaintiff was a woods \u201cswamper,\u201d cutting tree laps and brush in the Balsam Mountains. He was given an ax with a defective, switchy handle, which caused him to strike a limb and cut himself. McKinney v. Adams, 184 N. C., 562, 114 S. E., 817; Mercer v. R. R., 154 N. C., 399, 70 S. E., 742.\nThe simplicity of the ease rendered the use of the ordinary formula in charging the jury, without further explanation, certainly harmless, if not unnecessary. Fleming v. Utilities Co., 193 N. C., 262, 136 S. E., 723; S. v. Steadman, 200 N. C., 768, 158 S. E., 478. The jury could not have misunderstood the meaning of the expressions used, when applied to the evidence.\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Stacy, C. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "W. B. Sherrill and J ones & Ward for plaintiff.",
      "Johnston & Horner for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "LESTER MATTHEWS v. BLACKWOOD LUMBER COMPANY.\n(Filed 14 June, 1933.)\nTrial E c \u2014 Instruction in this case held sufficiently full in view of the simplicity of the case.\nThe failure of the trial court to define and explain the terms \u201cproximate cause,\u201d \u201cburden of proof,\u201d \u201cgreater weight of the evidence\u201d in his charge to the jury in an action against an employer for negligent injury, will not be held for error where the simplicity of the case renders such explanations unnecessary and it is apparent that the jury could not have misunderstood the meaning of the expressions used when applied to the evidence.\nAppeal by defendant from Hill, Special Judge, at February Term, 1933, of JacksoN.\nCivil action by servant to recover damages from master for alleged negligent injury, tried upon issues of negligence, contributory negligence, assumption of risk, and damages, which, resulted in a verdict and judgment for plaintiff.\nDefendant appeals, assigning errors.\nW. B. Sherrill and J ones & Ward for plaintiff.\nJohnston & Horner for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0725-01",
  "first_page_order": 791,
  "last_page_order": 792
}