{
  "id": 8598817,
  "name": "RUTH HOBSON v. LEWIS H. HOLT et al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Hobson v. Holt",
  "decision_date": "1950-12-13",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "81",
  "last_page": "83",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "233 N.C. 81"
    }
  ],
  "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": "232 N.C. 487",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8606562
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/232/0487-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 300,
    "char_count": 4233,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.489,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.061447019797991e-08,
      "percentile": 0.31923637246804737
    },
    "sha256": "cd320f4e2033860f63cbc5413834e1c059ac70de4772a1105f91298ab7d35d05",
    "simhash": "1:564c25bffe194540",
    "word_count": 755
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:52:46.396528+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "RUTH HOBSON v. LEWIS H. HOLT et al."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Stacy, C. J.\nThe plaintiff alleges that she was an employee on defendants\u2019 farm at the time of her injury. Her evidence tends to show that she and her husband were tenants or share croppers. The hearing produced no unison between allegation and proof and apparently no effort to fit the two. At any rate, there is no showing of responsibility on the part of any of defendants which would seem to charge them with actionable negligence. Whether upon proper pleading and proof the plaintiff might get to the jury is not before us for decision.\nThe plaintiff and her husband were in possession of the mules and had been for eighteen or twenty months. She was well aware of their propensities. Her injury seems to be the result of carelessness on her own part, or that of her husband, or else an unfortunate accident. Camp v. R. R., 232 N.C. 487.\nThe record suggests an affirmance rather than a reversal of the judgment of nonsuit.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Stacy, C. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Yorh .& Boyd- and Harry Ganderson for plaintiff, appellant.",
      "Hughes Hines for defendants, appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "RUTH HOBSON v. LEWIS H. HOLT et al.\n(Filed 13 December, 1950.)\nNegligence \u00a7 19b (1) \u2014\nEvidence tending to show tbat plaintiff and her husband were tenants or share croppers, that they had been in possession of the mules in question for eighteen or twenty months and were aware of their propensities, and that plaintiff, while riding on top of a load of hay, her husband driving, was injured wlien one of the mules of a known unmanageable nature suddenly ran, throwing her to the ground, is held insufficient to be submitted to the jury on the issue of negligence in an action against those in charge of the farming operations.\nAppeal by plaintiff from Clement, J., August Term, 1950, of Guil-eoed.\nCivil action to recover damages for an alleged negligent injury.\nIt appears from the evidence in the case that the plaintiff and her husband, together with their five children, were tenants or share croppers on the 191-acre Holt Farm in Guilford County during the years 1948 and 1949. There is no allegation as to who leased the farm to the plaintiff and her husband; nor with whom they dealt in respect of the matter. It is alleged, contrary to plaintiff\u2019s evidence, that they were employees on the farm. The evidence seems to indicate that Mrs. jElma W. Holt and Baymond Holt, both now deceased, were in charge of the farming operations during the years 1948-1949.\nOn motion of defendants, plaintiff\u2019s husband was made a party defendant in the case, and a cross-action was filed against him.\nThere is allegation and evidence on the part of plaintiff tending to show that on 16 September, 1949, plaintiff and her husband were gathering hay with a wagon and team of mules which had been furnished them; that one of the mules, the red one, was wild, dangerous and unmanageable at times; that plaintiff had talked to Lewis Holt about the mules and he promised to get rid of them by trading them off; that plaintiff talked with Helen Holt, daughter of Mrs. Elma Holt, about the mules in the late summer of 1949; that she also talked to Joe Coble, husband of one of the Holt daughters; that on the day in question plaintiff was riding on the load of hay and her husband was driving the mules to the barn; that they came to a low light wire across the road which had to be raised in order to let the load of hay pass under it; that her husband took the pitchfork and held the wire up, and \u201cI stepped the mules up, and instead of stepping up like I asked them to, the red one gave a leap . . . and they ran from there to the barn. ... I was slung off the wagon just when I started to turn\u201d from the road into the barn-yard. Plaintiff was seriously injured in the fall.\nCross-examination: \u201cWe got half the corn and tobacco and one-third of the hay. Yes, I knew one of the mules was particularly dangerous. No, he had never run with me before, but I had seen him run on several occasions.\u201d\nAll allegations of negligence are denied, while contributory negligence and assumption of risk are pleaded in bar of recovery.\nAt the close of plaintiff\u2019s evidence, there was a judgment as in case of nonsuit, from which she appeals, assigning errors.\nThe record is silent as to what was done with the cross-action.\nYorh .& Boyd- and Harry Ganderson for plaintiff, appellant.\nHughes Hines for defendants, appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0081-01",
  "first_page_order": 131,
  "last_page_order": 133
}