{ "id": 11298998, "name": "G. W. LEE v. D. M. ROBERSON", "name_abbreviation": "Lee v. Roberson", "decision_date": "1941-09-24", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "61", "last_page": "62", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "220 N.C. 61" } ], "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": "70 S. E., 742", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "154 N. C., 399", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8652505 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/154/0399-01" ] }, { "cite": "71 S. E., 315", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "155 N. C., 231", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "81 S. E., 1010", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "165 N. C., 687", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8661338 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/165/0687-01" ] }, { "cite": "87 S. E., 963", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "171 N. C., 88", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11269178 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/171/0088-01" ] }, { "cite": "93 S. E., 378", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "174 N. C., 39", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11252184 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/174/0039-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 278, "char_count": 3330, "ocr_confidence": 0.485, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08, "percentile": 0.23953230477915893 }, "sha256": "159378f1c81fae8661f1db56b0d7dbce2f238498b1c2b4390e7c7ff1ce761970", "simhash": "1:213e3cb7a6379a6f", "word_count": 592 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:44:04.432821+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "BarNhill, J., dissents." ], "parties": [ "G. W. LEE v. D. M. ROBERSON." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Stacy, C. J.\nTbe case was properly submitted to tbe jury. It is admitted that tbe defendant .bad a sufficient number of employees to bring him under tbe Workmen\u2019s Compensation Act \u201cand that be bad not done so.\u201d Accordingly, without objection or exception, bis plea of contributory negligence was stricken out. Micbie\u2019s N. C. Code of 1939, sec. 8081 (v).\nTbe defendant relies upon tbe simple tool doctrine. Newbern v. Great Atlantic, Etc., Tea Co., 68 F. (2d), 523, 91 A. L. R.,781. This cannot avail him on tbe present record, at least, not to tbe extent of shielding him from liability. King v. R. R., 174 N. C., 39, 93 S. E., 378; Wright v. Thompson, 171 N. C., 88, 87 S. E., 963; Ensley v. Lumber Co., 165 N. C., 687, 81 S. E., 1010; Reid v. Rees, 155 N. C., 231, 71 S. E., 315; Mercer v. R. R., 154 N. C., 399, 70 S. E., 742. It is true, tbe jury might have returned a verdict for tbe defendant, especially in view of tbe cross-examination of tbe plaintiff, but tbe evidence taken as a whole is such as to preclude a nonsuit.\nNo other question is debated on brief. Tbe verdict and judgment will be upheld.\nNo error.\nBarNhill, J., dissents.", "type": "majority", "author": "Stacy, C. J." } ], "attorneys": [ "Hugh G. Horton for plaintiff, appellee.", "Peel <& Manning, Clarence W. Griffin, and Wheeler Martin for defendant, appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "G. W. LEE v. D. M. ROBERSON.\n(Filed 24 September, 1941.)\n3. Master and Servant \u00a7\u00a7 19, 37\u2014\nWhere it is admitted that defendant employer bad a sufficient number of employees to bring him under the Workmen\u2019s Compensation Act, but that he had elected not to do so, the defense of contributory negligence is properly excluded. Michie\u2019s Code, 8081 (v).\n2. Master and Servant \u00a7 14b\u2014\nPlaintiff was injured when his hand came into contact with blades of an electric sausage grinder he was operating in the course of his employment. Plaintiff\u2019s evidence was to the effect that he had had no previous experience with an electric machine and that he was not furnished a mallet with which to push the meat through if the meat did not feed through by itself. Held,: The evidence, though contradicted by defendant\u2019s evidence, precludes a nonsuit upon the simple tool doctrine relied on by defendant.\nBabuhih, J., dissents.\nAppeal by defendant from Johnsion, Special Judge, at April Special Term, 1941, of MartiN.\nCivil action to recover damages for an alleged negligent injury.\nPlaintiff was employed by tbe defendant as a bandy man around bis slaughter bouse. On tbe fourth day of bis employment be was grinding-sausage when bis left band came in contact with tbe blades of tbe electric sausage grinder and cut off four fingers. Plaintiff bad bad no previous experience with an electric machine, though be bad used one on tbe farm operated by band. \u201cYou could stop tbe one on tbe farm if you bad your band in it.\u201d If tbe meat did not feed through by itself a mallet was used to push it down. Plaintiff testifies that be was furnished no mallet and given no instructions as to bow to operate tbe machine; that be was not familiar with a machine driven by electricity.\nTbe defendant\u2019s evidence tends to show that plaintiff was warned not to use bis band in pushing tbe meat into tbe grinder; that it was dangerous to do so, and that a mallet bad been furnished for that purpose.\nThere was a verdict and judgment for plaintiff, from which tbe defendant appeals, assigning errors.\nHugh G. Horton for plaintiff, appellee.\nPeel <& Manning, Clarence W. Griffin, and Wheeler Martin for defendant, appellant." }, "file_name": "0061-01", "first_page_order": 105, "last_page_order": 106 }