{ "id": 8606626, "name": "C. W. FALLS v. ARTHUR GOFORTH", "name_abbreviation": "Falls v. Goforth", "decision_date": "1939-11-22", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "501", "last_page": "503", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "216 N.C. 501" } ], "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": "73 N. C., 52", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8684130 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/73/0052-01" ] }, { "cite": "82 S. E., 840", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "166 N. C., 497", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11270226 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/166/0497-01" ] }, { "cite": "51 N. C., 532", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11278646 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/51/0532-01" ] }, { "cite": "109 S. E., 6", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "182 N. C., 298", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8655863 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/182/0298-01" ] }, { "cite": "84 S. E., 33", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "168 N. C., 24", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8656843 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/168/0024-01" ] }, { "cite": "153 S. E., 397", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "198 N. C., 777", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8620789 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/198/0777-01" ] }, { "cite": "129 S. E., 585", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "190 N. C., 209", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8598573 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/190/0209-01" ] }, { "cite": "102 S. E., 312", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "179 N. C., 231", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8655544 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/179/0231-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 342, "char_count": 4702, "ocr_confidence": 0.494, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.4260255935638772e-07, "percentile": 0.6499600941985421 }, "sha256": "789e8520c58fe513cb6a7e2aabb1bf0ec06447fb9e6996f1186e94b4d1ceb762", "simhash": "1:6636fdf69a9896f9", "word_count": 856 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:26:30.134660+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "C. W. FALLS v. ARTHUR GOFORTH." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Stacy, C. J.\nTbe appeal presents tbe question wbetber tbe facts bring tbe instant case witbin tbe principle announced in Beck v. Wilkins, 179 N. C., 231, 102 S. E., 312, or tbe rule applied in Morgan v. Bank, 190 N. C., 209, 129 S. E., 585. We tbink tbe case is controlled by tbe decisions in Beck v. Wilkins, supra; Hutchins v. Taylor-Buick Co., 198 N. C., 777, 153 S. E., 397; and Hanes v. Shapiro, 168 N. C., 24, 84 S. E., 33.\nTbe relation of plaintiff and defendant was tbat of bailor and bailee. Ordinarily, tbe liability of a bailee for tbe safe return of tbe thing bailed is made to depend upon tbe presence or absence of negligence. In proving tbis, tbe bailor bas tbe laboring oar, but it bas been beld in .a number of cases tbat a prima facie showing of negligence is made out when it is established tbat tbe bailee received tbe property in good condition and failed to return it, or returned it in a damaged condition. Trustees v. Banking Co., 182 N. C., 298, 109 S. E., 6.\nTbe case is not like Fortune v. Harris, 51 N. C., 532, where tbe plaintiff\u2019s own evidence exculpated tbe defendant of any negligence, in tbat, tbe horse there loaned fell and injured itself on a stump in tbe common horse-lot surrounding tbe defendant\u2019s stables.\nTbe case of Sawyer v. Wilkinson, 166 N. C., 497, 82 S. E., 840, is likewise distinguishable, for there admittedly tbe burning to death of tbe hired mules \u201cwas not caused by any negligence of tbe defendant.\u201d\nTbe present case is more nearly parallel to Rowland v. Jones, 73 N. C., 52, where a hired horse on being driven a distance of 33 miles in 7y% hours on a very hot day in September was overcome by tbe beat and died, tbe ruling being tbat tbe case was properly submitted to tbe jury.\nViewing tbe evidence with tbe degree of liberality required on motion to nonsuit, tbe conclusion is reached tbat it should be submitted to tbe jury.\nEeversed.", "type": "majority", "author": "Stacy, C. J." } ], "attorneys": [ "A. C. J ones and J ohn A. Willcins for plaintiff, appellant.", "Ernest R. Warren for defendant, appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "C. W. FALLS v. ARTHUR GOFORTH.\n(Filed 22 November, 1939.)\n1. Bailment \u00a7 1\u2014\nWhere the owner of a mule loans the. animal to another for the convenience of such other person in harvesting his crop, the relation of bailor and bailee exists between the parties.\n2. Bailment \u00a7 6\u2014\nThe burden is upon the bailor to prove negligence on the part of the bailee as a basis of the recovery of damages for the failure of the bailee to make safe return of the property bailed, but such negligence is established prima facie by a showing that the bailee received the property in good condition and failed to return it, or returned it in a damaged condition.\n3. Same \u2014 Evidence that property, at the time it was loaned to bailee, was in good condition and that bailee failed to return same held sufficient to overrule nonsuit.\nEvidence that at the time plaintiff loaned his mule to defendant, the mule was in good condition, that defendant hitched plaintiff\u2019s mule, which was a willing worker, to a mowing machine with defendant\u2019s mule, which was a slow worker and failed to pull his share of the load, that defendant worked the mules without rest on a very hot day until plaintiff\u2019s mule fell in harness and died of heat exhaustion, is held sufficient to be submitted to the jury in plaintiff\u2019s action to recover the value of the mule, and the granting of defendant\u2019s motion for judgment of nonsuit was error.\nAppeal by plaintiff from Ervin, Special Judge, at May Term, 1939, of GtASTON.\nCivil action to recover tbe value of a mule loaned tbe defendant by plaintiff.\nOn 22 June, 1938, tbe plaintiff loaned tbe defendant a mule to mow a field of oats. Tbe defendant bitched tbe plaintiff\u2019s mule and one -of bis own to a mowing machine and started mowing about 2 :00 p.m. Tbe field was 726 steps in circumference. Tbe defendant went round and round, in a circle, and did not have to stop to turn around. In about an hour, tbe plaintiff\u2019s mule fell in harness and died of beat and exhaustion.\nSam Childres, witness for tbe plaintiff, testifies that be saw tbe defendant working tbe mules \u201cmighty fast to be as hot as it was. . . . It was awful hot. . . . He slapped at tbe mule (witb a little whip) one time and tbe mule was pulling most of tbe machine. . . . He did not stop at all while I was in sight of them for some 4 or 5 minutes.\u201d\nThere is further evidence that tbe defendant\u2019s mule was \u201cpretty slow\u201d and would not keep up witb plaintiff\u2019s mule, which was \u201ca smart mule, free to go, . . . could not take a whipping and didn\u2019t need it.\u201d' Also that plaintiff\u2019s mule was in good condition when loaned to tbe defendant.\nFrom judgment of nonsuit entered at tbe close of plaintiff\u2019s evidence,, be appeals, assigning error.\nA. C. J ones and J ohn A. Willcins for plaintiff, appellant.\nErnest R. Warren for defendant, appellee." }, "file_name": "0501-01", "first_page_order": 567, "last_page_order": 569 }