{
  "id": 2221620,
  "name": "J. FRANK STANLEY, Administrator, v. TIDEWATER POWER COMPANY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Stanley v. Tidewater Power Co.",
  "decision_date": "1936-04-08",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "829",
  "last_page": "830",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "209 N.C. 829"
    }
  ],
  "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": 149,
    "char_count": 1976,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.5,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.5330875625009783e-08,
      "percentile": 0.28435171316937785
    },
    "sha256": "a9cba4aad0b0ce738c944cfe1e84a33483831b471a05c85dc0ea69ab98437270",
    "simhash": "1:39116efdb485d153",
    "word_count": 315
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:34:31.527681+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "J. FRANK STANLEY, Administrator, v. TIDEWATER POWER COMPANY."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nThe judgment of nonsuit is correct, whether viewed from want of evidence to establish actionable negligence on the part of the defendant, or from the standpoint of contributory negligence on the part of plaintiff\u2019s intestate.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "John G. Dawson and Allen & Allen for plaintiff.",
      "Poisson & Campbell and Rouse & Rouse for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "J. FRANK STANLEY, Administrator, v. TIDEWATER POWER COMPANY.\n(Filed 8 April, 1936.)\nElectricity A a \u2014 Defendant held not liable for intestate\u2019s death caused by contact with wire which intestate had knocked down in auto accident.\nEvidence that plaintiff\u2019s intestate drove his car off the highway, hit defendant\u2019s pole, causing an electric transmission wire supported thereby to sag, that intestate left the car where it stopped against a tree, but was killed when he returned and came in contact with the sagging wire which had caught on the car, is insufficient to resist defendant\u2019s motion to nonsuit, the evidence failing to establish negligence of defendant and disclosing contributory negligence on the part of plaintiff\u2019s intestate.\nAppeal by plaintiff from Barnhill, J., at November Term, 1935, of Lenoir.\nCivil action to recover damages for death of plaintiff\u2019s intestate, alleged to have been caused by the wrongful act, neglect, or default of the defendant.\nOn the night of 9 November, 1934, plaintiff\u2019s intestate drove his automobile off Highway No. 11, across a drain ditch, struck a pole which supported defendant\u2019s electric transmission wire, and came to a stop when his car ran into a tree. The wire sagged down and caught on the car. Plaintiff\u2019s intestate and his companions left the automobile in safety and returned to the highway. Later plaintiff\u2019s intestate started back to his car when he came in contact with the transmission wire and was killed. It is in evidence that the parties had all been drinking.\nProm judgment of nonsuit, entered at the close of plaintiff\u2019s evidence, he appeals, assigning errors.\nJohn G. Dawson and Allen & Allen for plaintiff.\nPoisson & Campbell and Rouse & Rouse for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0829-01",
  "first_page_order": 891,
  "last_page_order": 892
}