{
  "id": 8629339,
  "name": "MRS. CATHERINE ROGERS v. AMERICAN TOBACCO COMPANY and V. B. LOUGEE, JR.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Rogers v. American Tobacco Co.",
  "decision_date": "1935-01-28",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "865",
  "last_page": "866",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "207 N.C. 865"
    }
  ],
  "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": "52 S. E., 121",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "140 N. C., 115",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8651574
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/140/0115-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 135,
    "char_count": 2300,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.474,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.2073161408251987
    },
    "sha256": "13976412491656dfea16fc76fc7ebb0f6f2070423556fed4bc0d910e87b82328",
    "simhash": "1:5b53a0da3448458a",
    "word_count": 387
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:17:31.653514+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "MRS. CATHERINE ROGERS v. AMERICAN TOBACCO COMPANY and V. B. LOUGEE, JR."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Pe\u00fc Curiam:.\nThere is no evidence in the record tending to show a breach by the defendant Y. B. Lougee, Jr., of any duty which he owed to the plaintiff as superintendent of his codefendant, American Tobacco Company. For that reason there was error in the refusal of the trial court to allow the motion of said defendant, at the close of all the evidence, that the action be dismissed as to him. The judgment against the defendant Y. B. Lougee, Jr., is reversed.\nThere was evidence at the trial tending to show that the plaintiff was injured by the negligence of the defendant American Tobacco Company. See Ross v. Cotton Mills, 140 N. C., 115, 52 S. E., 121. This evidence, together with the conflicting evidence with respect to the contributory negligence of the plaintiff, was properly submitted to the jury. There was no error in the refusal of the trial court to allow the motion of the defendant American Tobacco Company at the close of all the evidence that the action be dismissed as to said defendant. The judgment against the defendant American Tobacco Company is affirmed.\nReversed in appeal of defendant Y. B. Lougee, Jr.\nNo error in appeal of defendant American Tobacco Company.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Pe\u00fc Curiam:."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Brawley & Gantt for plaintiff.",
      "Fuller, Reade & Fuller for defendants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "MRS. CATHERINE ROGERS v. AMERICAN TOBACCO COMPANY and V. B. LOUGEE, JR.\n(Filed 28 January, 1935.)\nAppeal by defendants from Moore, Special Judge, at March Term, 1934, of Dubham. No error in appeal of the defendant American Tobacco Company; reversed in appeal of the defendant Y. B. Lougee, Jr.\nThis is an action to recover damages for a personal injury suffered by the plaintiff while she was at work as an employee of the defendant American Tobacco Company, under the supervision of its superintendent, the defendant Y. B. Lougee, Jr.\nIssues submitted to the jury involving the negligence of the defendants as the proximate cause of plaintiff\u2019s injury, and the contributory negligence of the plaintiff, were answered in accordance with the contentions of the plaintiff. Her damages were assessed by the jury at $1,500.\nFrom judgment tbat plaintiff recover of the defendants the sum of $1,500, the defendants appealed to the Supreme Court, assigning as error the refusal of the trial court to dismiss the action by judgment as of nonsuit.\nBrawley & Gantt for plaintiff.\nFuller, Reade & Fuller for defendants."
  },
  "file_name": "0865-02",
  "first_page_order": 933,
  "last_page_order": 934
}