{
  "id": 8624268,
  "name": "CLYDE D. HOPKINS v. SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Hopkins v. Southern Railway Co.",
  "decision_date": "1946-10-30",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "655",
  "last_page": "656",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "226 N.C. 655"
    }
  ],
  "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": 199,
    "char_count": 2378,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.475,
    "sha256": "893b29a27a4873a4ce8f29c34688c883672347bb0f25d9296fb02b055242c1cf",
    "simhash": "1:d7aef9dce66a8062",
    "word_count": 397
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:52:42.041183+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "CLYDE D. HOPKINS v. SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nA careful consideration of the evidence offered by plaintiff fails to show any causal relation between the acts of negligence alleged and the injury sustained. No new principle of law is involved. Old and well established principles of law support the action of the court in sustaining demurrer to the evidence.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "B. W. Blackwelder for plaintiff, appellant.",
      "Hartsell & Hartsell for defendant, appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "CLYDE D. HOPKINS v. SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY.\n(Filed 30 October, 1946.)\nRailroads \u00a7 4\u2014\nWhere plaintiff alleges negligence on the part of defendant railroad company in failing under the circumstances to maintain lights, watchman or guards at a public crossing, but plaintiff\u2019s evidence discloses that the lights on his car were burning and that he ran into the train, nonsuit is proper for failure of evidence tending to show any causal relation between the negligence complained of and the injury.\nAppeal by plaintiff from Sinlc, J., at February Term, 1946, of Cabarrus.\nCivil action to recover for personal injuries allegedly resulting from actionable negligence of defendant in failing under tbe circumstances to maintain \u201clights, watchman or guards or facilities to protect tbe public at tbe point where tbe said railroad makes a crossing of \"West Corbin Street,\u201d in tbe city of Concord, North Carolina.\nTbe evidence for plaintiff tends to show, succinctly stated, tbat between 11 and 12 o\u2019clock on tbe night of 6 September, 1945, as be, riding in bis automobile, with lights in good condition, approached the railroad crossing on West Corbin Street, upgrade to the east, he came to a complete stop, about 30 or 35 feet from the main southbound track, and looked and listened and, failing to see or to hear anything, started on across, and when he \u201cgot up on the track\u201d he saw the passing train when he \u201cwas within four feet of it, \u2014 too late to stop\u201d; that \u201cthe weather was rainy, foggy ... a pretty heavy mist and fog\u201d; that \u201cwhen . . . within four feet of the train\u201d he \u201cdiscovered at th\u00e1t time there was smoke mixed in with the fog and mist and rain\u201d; that \u201cthere were not any signal devices there, no watchman, no lights, no bells, no gates,\u201d and that he collided with the train \u2014 the train \u201csnatched the car,\u201d and he sustained injuries.\nFrom judgment as of nonsuit at close of plaintiff\u2019s evidence, he appeals to Supreme Court and assigns error.\nB. W. Blackwelder for plaintiff, appellant.\nHartsell & Hartsell for defendant, appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0655-01",
  "first_page_order": 703,
  "last_page_order": 704
}