{
  "id": 8630191,
  "name": "FRANK THOMAS v. CAROLINA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Thomas v. Carolina Power & Light Co.",
  "decision_date": "1934-03-21",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "332",
  "last_page": "333",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "206 N.C. 332"
    }
  ],
  "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": 177,
    "char_count": 2980,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.446,
    "sha256": "47144fbce19fff317f882655a44b6ce7f51a2f6e35f8d297b2a19374f566db51",
    "simhash": "1:726b03ccb26b1bda",
    "word_count": 516
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:27:02.537957+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "FRANK THOMAS v. CAROLINA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nThere was no evidence at the trial of this action, which tends to show that either of the injuries suffered by the plaintiff was caused by the failure of the defendant to exercise due care for his safety. Both injuries were caused, as shown by all the evidence, by accidents which no reasonable foresight on the part of the defendant could have prevented. In the absence of any evidence tending to show actionable negligence on the part of the defendant, there is no error in the judgment dismissing the action.\nThe injuries shown by the evidence were suffered by plaintiff, while at work as an employee of defendant, prior to the enactment of the North Carolina Workmen\u2019s Compensation Act, chapter 120, Public Laws of North Carolina, 1929. In the absence of negligence on its part, the defendant is not liable to the plaintiff for the damages which resulted from his injuries. The judgment is\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "K. B. Hoyle for plaintiff.",
      "Ruarle & Ruarle, A. Y. Arliclye and Williams & Williams for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "FRANK THOMAS v. CAROLINA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY.\n(Filed 21 March, 1934.)\nMaster and Servant O b \u2014 Held: evidence failed to show that employee\u2019s injuries were caused by want of due care on part of employer.\nEvidence that an employee was injured when struck by a plank which flew up when struck by the wheels of employer\u2019s truck when the truck crossed a bridge, and that the employee was injured when wire which he was carrying caught in his sleeve and jerked his hand against a piece of steel, is held to show that the injuries were caused by accidents which could not have been reasonably foreseen, and not by employer\u2019s failure to exercise due care for employee\u2019s safety.\nAppeal by plaintiff from Barnhill, J., at January Term, 1934, of Lee.\nAffirmed.\nThis is an action to recover damages for personal injuries suffered by plaintiff while at work as an employee of the defendant.\nTwo causes of action are alleged in the complaint, both predicated on allegations of actionable negligence on the part of the defendant.\nThe injury for which plaintiff seeks to recover on the first cause of action was caused when a plank \u201cflew up,\u201d and struck plaintiff on the ankle, as he was riding on a truck owned and operated by the defendant. The plank was on a bridge over which the truck was driven, and \u201cflew up\u201d when it was struck by the wheels of the truck.\nThe injury for which plaintiff seeks to recover on the second cause of action was caused when plaintiff\u2019s hand was suddenly jerked by a wire which had caught plaintiff\u2019s sleeve, and thereby caused to strike a piece of steel. The wire was in a bundle of wires, which plaintiff and another employee of defendant were carrying to a steel tower, which was under construction by the defendant.\nAt the close of the evidence for the plaintiff, the defendant moved for judgment as of nonsuit. The motion was allowed, and plaintiff excepted.\nFrom judgment dismissing the action, the plaintiff appealed to the Supreme Court.\nK. B. Hoyle for plaintiff.\nRuarle & Ruarle, A. Y. Arliclye and Williams & Williams for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0332-01",
  "first_page_order": 394,
  "last_page_order": 395
}