{
  "id": 8613709,
  "name": "PLANTERS NATIONAL BANK AND TRUST COMPANY OF ROCKY MOUNT, N. C., Administrator of CHARLES BARKER, Deceased, v. ATLANTIC COAST LINE RAILROAD COMPANY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Planters National Bank & Trust Co. v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad",
  "decision_date": "1935-10-09",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "574",
  "last_page": "576",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "208 N.C. 574"
    }
  ],
  "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": 369,
    "char_count": 6127,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.453,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.061447019797991e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3192359863451498
    },
    "sha256": "95628471b229a5b2ecc58fe5342c0a7060b6a969c2dc7770e71bd4633b83da5f",
    "simhash": "1:1d3308bf3e9e4d15",
    "word_count": 1060
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:53:32.811961+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "PLANTERS NATIONAL BANK AND TRUST COMPANY OF ROCKY MOUNT, N. C., Administrator of CHARLES BARKER, Deceased, v. ATLANTIC COAST LINE RAILROAD COMPANY."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Peb Ctjbiam.\nAt tbe close of plaintiff\u2019s evidence tbe defendant made a motion in tbe court below for judgment as in case of nonsuit. C. S.,. 567. Tbe court below sustained tbe motion and in tbis we can see no error. Tbe grounds of tbe motion were, (1) failure of proof on the-part of tbe plaintiff; (2) assumption of risk.\nTbe evidence on tbe part of plaintiff was to tbe effect tbat its intestate,, Charles Barker, was an employee of defendant. It was bis duty \u201cto-inspect trains, to see tbat tbe seals on tbe freight cars were unbroken, and generally to look after and protect tbe property of tbe defendant, and these duties required tbe said Charles Barker to frequently cross and re-cross tbe defendant\u2019s yards and tracks.\u201d He was doing tbat sort of work for four years. His duties required him when trains came in to examine tbe seals on these trains to see tbat they bad not been broken and to examine tbe cars to see tbat no hoboes were arriving.\nCharles Barker, tbe deceased, left bis wife and children to go to work for tbe defendant at a quarter to six in tbe evening of 16 February, 1932. He was a strong, healthy man. He was found on defendant\u2019s track at 6 :35 or 6 :40 lying across tbe rail dead. He was cut in two about tbe breast, having been run over by defendant\u2019s train. Other employees saw him in tbe performance of bis duties and tbe last seen of him alive was about 15 or 20 minutes before be was found dead. Tbe night was dark and it was drizzling rain. One of tbe witnesses for plaintiff testified: \u201cTbe yards there are lighted by overhead lights and these lights are far enough apart or close enough together to light that ladder track so that you can see well enough. On this night in question when I saw Mr. Barker\u2019s body I was looking at it by the light of the overhead light. As you go and come in there all around that ladder track you can see where you are walking by these overhead lights, but, of course, you could not see how to inspect a car by them. You couldn\u2019t read a newspaper by them unless you were right under one of them, but if you had pretty good eyes and were right under the light you could read a newspaper. You could see what was coming and going on under those lights.\u201d\nWe have read with care the evidence. It is well settled that circumstantial evidence, when sufficiently strong, is as competent as positive evidence to prove a fact. In the present case we do not think the circumstantial evidence, taken as a whole, sufficient to be submitted to a jury. The manner in which plaintiff\u2019s intestate was killed, from the record evidence, is speculative, uncertain, and conjectural, and is not sufficient to be submitted to a jury.\nPlaintiff\u2019s intestate was engaged in interstate commerce. The liability is determined solely by the Federal Employer\u2019s Liability Act, and assumption of risk pleaded by defendant is a good defense. Plaintiff\u2019s evidence indicates that plaintiff\u2019s intestate knew, and assumed the risk of the employment which he was engaged in.\nThe evidence excluded by the court below was immaterial from the view we take of the entire evidence.\nIn law the nonsuit must be sustained. The plaintiff\u2019s intestate was a bread-winner and died in such a manner as should call for some provision, which should be made in such cases for the widow and children.\nIn law we find\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Peb Ctjbiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "J. P. Bunn, Langston, Allen & Taylor, and Gooley & Bone for plaintiff.",
      "Spruill & Spruill and Thos. W. Davis for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "PLANTERS NATIONAL BANK AND TRUST COMPANY OF ROCKY MOUNT, N. C., Administrator of CHARLES BARKER, Deceased, v. ATLANTIC COAST LINE RAILROAD COMPANY.\n(Filed 9 October, 1935.)\n1. Master and Servant E c \u2014 Assumption of risk held to bar recovery for death of plaintiff\u2019s intestate under Federal Employers\u2019 Liability Act.\nEvidence that plaintiff\u2019s intestate was employed to inspect freight cars upon defendant\u2019s tracks, and that he was seen engaged in his duties in interstate commerce a short while before his death, on a dark night with drizzling rain, and that he was found dead upon the tracks with indications that he had been struck by a train, with evidence that the place where he was working was sufficiently lighted to have enabled him to see approaching trains, is held to bar recovery as a matter of law under the Federal Employers\u2019 Liability Act upon the doctrine of assumption of risk, it being in evidence that plaintiff\u2019s intestate knew the risk of the employment, and the evidence leaving the manner in which he was killed in the field of speculation and conjecture.\n2. Master and Servant E a\u2014\nIn an action to recover for the death of plaintiff\u2019s intestate, killed while engaged in his employment in interstate commerce, the Federal Employers\u2019 Liability Act is controlling.\n3. Evidence D 1\u2014\nCircumstantial evidence, when sufficiently strong, is as competent as positive evidence to prove a fact, but it is insufficient when it leaves the matter sought to be established in the field of speculation and conjecture.\nAppeal by plaintiff from Sinclair, J., at February Term, 1935, of Nash.\nAffirmed.\nThis is an action for actionable negligence, brought by plaintiff against defendant for killing its intestate, Charles Barker, on 16 February, 1932.\nTbe following judgment was rendered in tbe court below:\n\u201cThis canse came on for bearing before tbe undersigned judge presiding at tbe February, 1935, Term, of tbe Superior Court of Nash County.\n\u201cAt tbe close of plaintiff\u2019s evidence, defendant moved tbat judgment of nonsuit be entered.\n\u201cUpon tbe proof offered, tbe court finds as a fact tbat, at tbe time of the occurrence of tbe alleged fatal injury, plaintiff and defendant were engaged in interstate commerce, and tbat tbe statutes and decisions of tbe Federal Courts, therefore, control.\n\u201cAnd tbe court being of opinion tbat defendant\u2019s motion is well taken;\n\u201cIt is therefore ordered and adjudged tbat tbis action be and tbe same is hereby dismissed as of nonsuit, tbe cost to be taxed against tbe plaintiff by the clerk. N. A. Sinclair, Judge Presiding.\u201d\nTbe plaintiff made numerous exceptions and assignments of error, and appealed to tbe Supreme Court.\nJ. P. Bunn, Langston, Allen & Taylor, and Gooley & Bone for plaintiff.\nSpruill & Spruill and Thos. W. Davis for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0574-01",
  "first_page_order": 640,
  "last_page_order": 642
}