{
  "id": 8626590,
  "name": "FREEZE LOFLIN v. NORTH CAROLINA RAILROAD COMPANY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Loflin v. North Carolina Railroad",
  "decision_date": "1936-06-30",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "404",
  "last_page": "406",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "210 N.C. 404"
    }
  ],
  "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": 307,
    "char_count": 5407,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.46,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 7.399903817858418e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4426732987135543
    },
    "sha256": "c2f12107e55fe1b07d7d3130970ca157dddae8b00c516c8e3f9cb3c776e8ee1d",
    "simhash": "1:a9f4fde88e7561df",
    "word_count": 930
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:57:05.250790+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Stacy, C. J., dissents."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "FREEZE LOFLIN v. NORTH CAROLINA RAILROAD COMPANY."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Schenck, J.\nThis was \u00e1 civil action to recover damages for personal injuries and for destruction of an automobile alleged to have been proximately caused by the negligence of the defendant. The defendant pleaded the contributory negligence of the plaintiff in bar of his recovery. The defendant offered no evidence, and in the course of the trial conceded its own negligence, and upon its appeal presents but one question, namely, did the court err in denying its motion for judgment as of nonsuit, upon the ground that the plaintiff\u2019s evidence showed that he was guilty of contributory negligence?\nThe evidence, construed most favorably to the plaintiff, as it must be upon a motion to nonsuit, tended to show that the plaintiff, Freeze Loflin, in December, 1934, was working for the Hughes Lumber Company in Thomasville, which was located about 600 feet from the crossing of East End Street and the tracks of the defendant. That there were four tracks, the first known as the Belt Line track, the second as the Northbound track, the third as the Southbound track, and the fourth as the Switch track. Between 10 and 11 o\u2019clock a.m., the plaintiff got in his Chevrolet automobile and started to drive from the lumber company\u2019s plant, located on the south side of defendant\u2019s tracks, to his brother\u2019s store, located on the north side thereof. \"While traveling along East End Street, and when in about 43 feet from the Belt Line track, the plaintiff stopped his car, looked up and down the track of the defendant, and, not seeing nor hearing any train, approached the crossing with his automobile in low gear and traveling four or five miles per hour. When he reached the first track of the defendant, the Belt Line track, he again looked up and down said tracks, and, not seeing nor hearing any train, continued on across the Northbound track, and when his car was on the third track, the Southbound track, he saw the defendant\u2019s train about 100 yards away, coming at a very rapid rate of speed, and, realizing that he did not have time to get across this track, jerked the left-hand door of his automobile open and attempted to get his body out of the way of the oncoming train, but when his feet were on the left running board of his automobile, the train struck it and knocked it about 50 yards west of the crossing, hurling the defendant 15 or 20 feet, and thereby injuring him and destroying his automobile. That the embankment on the defendant\u2019s right of way prevented the plaintiff, when he stopped 43 feet from the Belt Line track, from seeing more than 300 feet east down the defendant\u2019s tracks; that when the plaintiff\u2019s car reached the Belt Line track, where he again looked up and down said tracks, the curve in the defendant\u2019s tracks east of said crossing prevented tbe plaintiff from seeing more tban 700 or 800 feet east, and when tbe plaintiff\u2019s car reached tbe Southbound track, where it was struck by tbe defendant\u2019s train, tbe said curve prevented him from seeing more tban 600 or 700 feet; that tbe defendant\u2019s train approached and passed over tbe said crossing, traveling at tbe rate of 60 or 65 miles an hour, and without blowing tbe whistle or ringing tbe bell or giving any other signal of its approach to said crossing.\n\"We think, and so bold, that under tbe foregoing evidence bis Honor properly submitted to tbe jury tbe issue of contributory negligence, and tbe jury having answered tbe issue in favor of tbe plaintiff, under a charge to which no exception is taken, we find on tbe record\nNo error.\nStacy, C. J., dissents.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Schenck, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Phillips & Bower and, Spruill & Olive for plaintiff, appellee.",
      "Don A. Walser and Linn & Linn for defendant, appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "FREEZE LOFLIN v. NORTH CAROLINA RAILROAD COMPANY.\n(Filed 30 June, 1936.)\nRailroads D b \u2014 Evidence held not to show contributory negligence as matter of law on part of plaintiff in crossing defendant\u2019s tracks.\nThe evidence, considered in the light most favorable to plaintiff, tended to show that plaintiff approached defendant\u2019s four parallel tracks crossing the highway during the daytime, that plaintiff stopped his car forty-three feet from the first track and looked and listened, and again stopped, looked, and listened when he reached the first track, and, failing to see or hear defendant\u2019s approaching train, attempted to cross the tracks, and when reaching the third track, saw defendant\u2019s train approaching from the east on the third track when it was about three hundred feet away, that the train was running at a rate of sixty to sixty-five miles per hour and gave no signal by whistle or bell, and that the train struck plaintiff\u2019s car as he was attempting to leave it after seeing that he could not get safely across the track. The evidence also tended to show that an embankment on defendant\u2019s right of way prevented plaintiff from seeing more than three hundred feet to the east from the place where he first stopped, and prevented him seeing more than seven or eight hundred feet to the east from the place where he stopped the second time, and prevented him seeing more than six or seven hundred feet to the east when reaching the- third track. Beld: The evidence fails to disclose contributory negligence of plaintiff as a matter of law, and defendant\u2019s motion to nonsuit, based thereon, was properly refused.\nStacy, C. J., dissents.\nAppeal by tbe defendant from Shaw, J., at October Term, 1935, of DavidsoN.\nNo error.\nPhillips & Bower and, Spruill & Olive for plaintiff, appellee.\nDon A. Walser and Linn & Linn for defendant, appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0404-01",
  "first_page_order": 470,
  "last_page_order": 472
}