{ "id": 8628584, "name": "NELLIE MAY LINCOLN, Administratrix, v. ATLANTIC COAST LINE RAILROAD COMPANY", "name_abbreviation": "Lincoln v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad", "decision_date": "1935-02-27", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "787", "last_page": "789", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "207 N.C. 787" } ], "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 S. E., 419", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "204 N. C., 668", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8623764 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/204/0668-01" ] }, { "cite": "162 S. E., 613", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "202 N. C., 256", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8625743 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/202/0256-01" ] }, { "cite": "171 S. E., 73", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "205 N. C., 269", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8628212 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/205/0269-01" ] }, { "cite": "156 S. E., 102", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "199 N. C., 798", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8616174 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/199/0798-01" ] }, { "cite": "143 S. E., 829", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "195 N. C., 764", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8632025 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/195/0764-01" ] }, { "cite": "146 S. E., 83", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "196 N. C., 466", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8627631 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/196/0466-01" ] }, { "cite": "140 S. E., 598", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "194 N. C., 656", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8615578 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/194/0656-01" ] }, { "cite": "171 S. E., 342", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "205 N. C., 329", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8628505 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/205/0329-01" ] }, { "cite": "156 S. E., 508", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "200 N. C., 177", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8618024 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/200/0177-01" ] }, { "cite": "155 S. E., 601", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "199 N. C., 695", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8613193 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/199/0695-01" ] }, { "cite": "109 S. E., 361", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "182 N. C., 470", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8656362 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/182/0470-01" ] }, { "cite": "166 S. E., 898", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "203 N. C., 730", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8619604 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/203/0730-01" ] }, { "cite": "81 N. C., 245", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8688248 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/81/0245-01" ] }, { "cite": "133 S. E., 12", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "191 N. C., 722", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8631258 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/191/0722-01" ] }, { "cite": "157 S. E., 800", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "200 N. C., 527", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8624202 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/200/0527-01" ] }, { "cite": "31 S. E., 848", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "123 N. C., 604", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8660289 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/123/0604-01" ] }, { "cite": "143 S. E., 536", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "195 N. C., 699", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8631574 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/195/0699-01" ] }, { "cite": "40 S. E., 202", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "129 N. C., 398", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8661054 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/129/0398-01" ] }, { "cite": "154 S.E., 604", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "199 N. C., 278", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8599333 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/199/0278-01" ] }, { "cite": "54 S. E., 391", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "141 N. C., 530", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11253610 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/141/0530-01" ] }, { "cite": "167 S. E., 847", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "204 N. C., 252", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8615846 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/204/0252-01" ] }, { "cite": "71 S. E., 86", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "155 N. C., 90", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8651815 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/155/0090-01" ] }, { "cite": "108 S. E., 323", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "182 N. C., 34", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8655119 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/182/0034-01" ] }, { "cite": "127 S. E., 356", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "189 N. C., 408", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8654346 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/189/0408-01" ] }, { "cite": "172 S. E., 402", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "205 N. C., 770", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8631361 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/205/0770-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 446, "char_count": 7579, "ocr_confidence": 0.505, "pagerank": { "raw": 8.984502688670163e-07, "percentile": 0.9787823537202363 }, "sha256": "927081c6710493b86d29a2f6a9fe6ba2c3cd56cf8cff09fc444d87b27a227b83", "simhash": "1:94042cb1be98a3ec", "word_count": 1377 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:17:31.653514+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "NELLIE MAY LINCOLN, Administratrix, v. ATLANTIC COAST LINE RAILROAD COMPANY." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Stagy, O. J.\nOn considering a motion to nonsuit under the Hinsdale Act, C. S., 567, or a demurrer to the evidence, it is established by numerous decisions:\n1. That the evidence which makes for plaintiff\u2019s claim, or tends to support his cause of action, is to be taken in its most favorable light for th\u00e9 plaintiff, and he is \u201centitled to the benefit of every reasonable intendment upon the evidence, and every reasonable inference to be drawn therefrom.\u201d Dickerson v. Reynolds, 205 N. C., 770, 172 S. E., 402; Jones v. Bagwell, ante, 378; Nash v. Boyster, 189 N. C., 408, 127 S. E., 356.\n2. That mere discrepancies and contradictions, even in the plaintiff\u2019s evidence, are matters for the jury and not for the court. Newly v. Realty Co., 182 N. C., 34, 108 S. E., 323; Shell v. Roseman, 155 N. C., 90, 71 S. E., 86.\n3. That the facts in issue may be established by circumstantial evidence as well as by direct proof. Lynch v. Tel. Co., 204 N. C., 252, 167 S. E., 847; Fitzgerald v. R. R., 141 N. C., 530, 54 S. E., 391.\n4. That the competency of evidence and witnesses is for the court, while their credibility is for the twelve. S. v. Beal, 199 N. C., 278, 154 S.E., 604; Cogdell v. R. R., 129 N. C., 398, 40 S. E., 202.\n5. That a showing sufficient to support the plaintiff\u2019s claim carries the case to the jury. Brown v. R. R., 195 N. C., 699, 143 S. E., 536; Cox v. R. R., 123 N. C., 604, 31 S. E., 848.\n6. That if the evidence be so slight as not reasonably to warrant the inference of the fact in issue, the court will not leave the matter to the speculation of the jury. Eller v. R. R., 200 N. C., 527, 157 S. E., 800; Poovey v. Sugar Co., 191 N. C., 722, 133 S. E., 12; Brown v. Kinsey, 81 N. C., 245.\n7. That when more than one legitimate inference can be drawn from the evidence, the question of proximate cause is to be determined by the jury. Wadsworth v. Trucking Co., 203 N. C., 730, 166 S. E., 898; Stultz v. Thomas, 182 N. C., 470, 109 S. E., 361.\n8. That in negligence cases the issue of contributory negligence is ordinarily for the twelve. Butner v. R. R., 199 N. C., 695, 155 S. E., 601; Smith v. R. R., 200 N. C., 177, 156 S. E., 508.\n9. That only when plaintiff proves himself out of court is he to be nonsuited on the evidence of contributory negligence. Baker v. R. R., 205 N. C., 329, 171 S. E., 342; Harrison v. R. R., 194 N. C., 656, 140 S. E., 598.\n10. That notwithstanding the contributory negligence of the plaintiff, he may still recover, in proper instances and upon sufficient showing, under the doctrine of the last clear chance. Jenkins v. R. R., 196 N. C., 466, 146 S. E., 83; Redmon v. R. R., 195 N. C., 764, 143 S. E., 829.\nApplying these principles to the facts of the instant case, it would seem that the motion to nonsuit should have been overruled. \u2022 There was error in sustaining it. Speaking to a similar situation in Harris v. R. R., 199 N. C., 798, 156 S. E., 102, it was said: \u201cThat law in this State does not impose upon the driver of a motor vehicle, on his approach to a public crossing, the duty, under all circumstances, to stop his vehicle before driving on the crossing. Whether under all the circumstances, as the evidence tends to show, and as the jury may find from the evidence, the failure of the driver to stop, as well as to look and listen for an approaching train at a railroad crossing, was negligence on his part, is ordinarily a question involving matters of -fact as well as of law, and must be determined by the jury under proper instructions from the court. This principle has statutory recognition in this State.\u201d See, also, Keller v. R. R. and Davis v. R. R., 205 N. C., 269, 171 S. E., 73, and cases there cited.\nReversed.", "type": "majority", "author": "Stagy, O. J." } ], "attorneys": [ "Buarh & Buarh for plaintiff.", "Thomas W. Davis and MacLean <& Bodman for defendant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "NELLIE MAY LINCOLN, Administratrix, v. ATLANTIC COAST LINE RAILROAD COMPANY.\n(Filed 27 February, 1935.)\n1. Trial D a \u2014 On motion of nonsuit all the evidence is to he considered in the light most favorable to plaintiff.\nUpon a motion as of nonsuit all the evidence which makes for plaintiff\u2019s claim or tends to support his cause of action is to be considered in its most favorable light for plaintiff, and he is entitled to every reasonable intendment thereon and every reasonable inference therefrom. C. S., 567.\n2. Same \u2014 Sufficiency of evidence upon motion,of nonsuit.\nA showing sufficient to support plaintiff\u2019s claim carries the case to the jury over defendant\u2019s motion as of nonsuit, and plaintiff\u2019s case may be established by circumstantial evidence, and mere discrepancies and contradictions, even in plaintiff\u2019s evidence, are not sufficient to warrant the withdrawal of the case from the jury, since the weight and credibility of the testimony is for the jury, but where the evidence is so slight as not reasonably to warrant the inference of the fact in issue the motion should be allowed.\n3. Trial D d\u2014\nThe competency of evidence and witnesses is for the court, while their credibility is for the jury.\n4. Negligence D c\u2014\nWhen more than one legitimate inference can be drawn from the evidence the question of proximate cause is for the jury.\n5. Same\u2014\nThe issue of contributory negligence is ordinarily for the jury, and it is only when the plaintiff proves himself out of court that a nonsuit for contributory negligence should be allowed, and even then, in proper instances and upon sufficient showing, plaintiff may be entitled to go to the jury on the doctrine of last clear chance.\n6. Railroads D b \u2014 Held, railroad\u2019s motion of nonsuit in this action for death of intestate killed at crossing, should have been denied.\nIn this action to recover for intestate\u2019s death resulting from a collision of intestate\u2019s car with a train at a railroad crossing, defendant railroad company moved for nonsuit on the ground of contributory negligence for that intestate did not stop the car before driving upon the tracks: Held, the motion should have been denied under the evidence, considered in the light most favorable to plaintiff.\nAppeal by plaintiff from Sinclair, J., at October Term, 1934, of Beaufort.\nCivil action to recover damages for tbe death of plaintiff\u2019s intestate, alleged to have been caused by tbe wrongful act, neglect, or default of tbe defendant, instituted under section 11 of tbe North Carolina Workmen\u2019s Compensation Act on behalf of the insurance carrier, and prosecuted as provided by the statute in the name of the personal representative. Brown v. B. B., 202 N. C., 256, 162 S. E., 613; S. c., 204 N. C., 668, 169 S. E., 419.\nThe facts are these: Plaintiff\u2019s intestate was killed 10 January, 1933, at a railroad crossing near Washington, N. C., in a collision between the automobile or truck in which he was riding and a train operated by the defendant. It appears from the plaintiff\u2019s evidence that the train approached the crossing at a speed of 45 or 50 miles an hour without signals or warning of any kind; and that plaintiff\u2019s intestate\u2019s view was obstructed so that he could not see the oncoming train until he was within 3 or 4 or 5 feet of the track. Other witnesses said he could have seen the train 20 or 25 feet from the track. He drove upon the track and was hit by the train.\nIt is conceded by defendant that plaintiff\u2019s evidence is sufficient to carry the case to the jury on the issue of negligence, but defendant contends the evidence of contributory negligence is such as to bar a recovery, and that the judgment of nonsuit should be sustained.\nFrom a judgment dismissing the action at the close of all the evidence the plaintiff appeals, assigning error.\nBuarh & Buarh for plaintiff.\nThomas W. Davis and MacLean <& Bodman for defendant." }, "file_name": "0787-01", "first_page_order": 855, "last_page_order": 857 }