{
  "id": 8611934,
  "name": "MRS. J. C. HUBBEL v. TALBOT FURNITURE COMPANY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Hubbel v. Talbot Furniture Co.",
  "decision_date": "1940-05-01",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "518",
  "last_page": "519",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "217 N.C. 518"
    }
  ],
  "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": 164,
    "char_count": 2094,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.471,
    "sha256": "93146752639191aa86da031f5c225de03b83d950f4fa90cc57a0224e27e61e0c",
    "simhash": "1:027e4b9e230b79c0",
    "word_count": 340
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:38:29.672243+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "MRS. J. C. HUBBEL v. TALBOT FURNITURE COMPANY."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nThis is an action by the plaintiff to recover damages for personal injury alleged to have been negligently inflicted by the defendant.\nThe allegations of the complaint are to the effect that the defendant left a washing machine at the home of the plaintiff for the purpose of making a sale thereof, and that while the salesman of the defendant was demonstrating said machine in an endeavor to correct some difficulty which the plaintiff had had in the operation thereof, he turned the electric current on the machine while plaintiff\u2019s hand was known to be in close proximity thereto, without giving her any warning, thereby causing the machinery to be put in motion and to catch the hand of the plaintiff therein, to her injury.\nWhen the plaintiff had introduced her evidence and rested her case the defendant moved for judgment as in case of nonsuit, C. S., 567, which motion was denied, and defendant reserved exception.\nThe jury answered the issues of negligence, contributory negligence and damage in favor of the plaintiff, and from judgment predicated upon the verdict the defendant appealed, assigning error.\nThe only assignment of error set out in the appellant\u2019s brief is to the denial of the defendant\u2019s motion for judgment as in case of nonsuit. Since tbe evidence, wben taken in tbe light most favorable to tbe plaintiff, supports tbe allegations of tbe complaint, tbis exception cannot be sustained, and tbe judgment of tbe Superior Court must be affirmed.\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Carswell & Ervin for plaintiff, appellee.",
      "J. Louis Carter for defendant, appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "MRS. J. C. HUBBEL v. TALBOT FURNITURE COMPANY.\n(Filed 1 May, 1940.)\nNegligence \u00a7 3\u2014\nAllegations and evidence to the effect that defendant\u2019s salesman, in demonstrating a washing machine, started it working without warning while plaintiff\u2019s hand was known by him to be in close proximity to the machine, and that plaintiff\u2019s hand was caught therein, resulting in injury, held sufficient to overrule defendant\u2019s motion to nonsuit.\nAppeal by defendant from Johnston, Special Judge, at October Term, 1939, of MECKLENBURG-.\nCarswell & Ervin for plaintiff, appellee.\nJ. Louis Carter for defendant, appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0518-01",
  "first_page_order": 584,
  "last_page_order": 585
}