{
  "id": 2221355,
  "name": "F. M. MISENHEIMER v. TOWN OF TROY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Misenheimer v. Town of Troy",
  "decision_date": "1936-01-22",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "838",
  "last_page": "838",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "209 N.C. 838"
    }
  ],
  "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": 185,
    "char_count": 2194,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.467,
    "sha256": "e21087390d104b4afebb458a0f84fbf9867577465448355747b21bccfec823cb",
    "simhash": "1:02f79ad213978ad7",
    "word_count": 401
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:34:31.527681+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "F. M. MISENHEIMER v. TOWN OF TROY."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nAt the close of plaintiff\u2019s evidence the defendant made a motion in the court below for judgment as in case of nonsuit. C. S., 561. The court below granted the motion, and in this we can see no error.\nThe plaintiff\u2019s evidence was to the effect that he and his brother were engaged in hauling crossties and went to Troy in a truck, on 22 April, 1933, and stopped in the main section of the town \u2014 on west side of street. In going to Johnson\u2019s store, on the east1\u2019side, he passed across the street and stepped on the curbing and slipped and fell on a barrel in front of Johnson\u2019s store. That the curbing was painted white with fresh paint. Plaintiff testified, in part: \u201cI went across the street and the little six-inch curbing was painted white and I stepped on it with my right foot and it slipped out to the left and threw me over on the barrel \u2014 the right side. It was an apple barrel, with no hoop on the top, an empty barrel.\u201d\nThe plaintiff was seriously injured. It was in the morning, about 10 or 11 o\u2019clock.\nJohnson, a witness for plaintiff, testified: \u201cCurb was painted half-way in front of store. All way round the end. Run off in front of filling station. Had never seen this curb painted before. Don\u2019t know why it was there and don\u2019t know why or who put it there.\u201d\nIf it was negligence for the defendant to paint the curbing, there is no evidence that it was done by the defendant town, or that the officers of defendant knew, or by the exercise of due care ought to have known, of the situation complained of. It is questionable, under the facts and circumstances of this case, if the painting of the curbing was done by defendant and the barrel was as indicated in the evidence, that it was such a situation that injury to travelers might be reasonably anticipated or foreseen.\nWe think the judgment of the court below must be\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "R. L. Smith & Sons, W. L. Harm, and' M. O. Risk for plaintiff.",
      "F. T. Poole for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "F. M. MISENHEIMER v. TOWN OF TROY.\n(Filed 22 January, 1936.)\nAppeal by plaintiff from Sink, J., at April Term, 1935, of Montgomery.\nAffirmed.\nThis is an action for actionable negligence brought by plaintiff against defendant alleging damage.\nR. L. Smith & Sons, W. L. Harm, and' M. O. Risk for plaintiff.\nF. T. Poole for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0838-01",
  "first_page_order": 900,
  "last_page_order": 900
}