{
  "id": 8624598,
  "name": "GEORGE A. DEESE, Administrator of the Estate of GEORGE M. DEESE, v. CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Deese v. Carolina Power & Light Co.",
  "decision_date": "1951-11-28",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "558",
  "last_page": "559",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "234 N.C. 558"
    }
  ],
  "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": "190 S.E. 207",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "211 N.C. 386",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8626970
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/211/0386-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "85 S.E. 33",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "169 N.C. 68",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8656553
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/169/0068-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 184,
    "char_count": 2325,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.497,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 8.531019873737703e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4874228188593235
    },
    "sha256": "a8635f1a8e1407b74569a92e3907f54f739ed0637a6a30fb65b7c318a667b5c6",
    "simhash": "1:dd3f3844b58777c1",
    "word_count": 381
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:34:56.500685+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "JOHNSON, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "GEORGE A. DEESE, Administrator of the Estate of GEORGE M. DEESE, v. CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nTbe evidence disclosed no actionable negligence on the part of defendant. The death of plaintiff\u2019s intestate evidently resulted from his own independent acts in felling the tree across defendant\u2019s tap line and thereafter attempting to cut the tree top or bough in order to release the wire. This is a situation which, under the circumstances here presented, could not have been reasonably foreseen by the defendant. Parker v. R. R., 169 N.C. 68, 85 S.E. 33; Stanley v. Smithfield, 211 N.C. 386, 190 S.E. 207.\nThe judgment of nonsuit is\nAffirmed.\nJOHNSON, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "J ones <& J ones for plaintiff, appellant.",
      "Fred W. Bynum and A. Y. Arledge for defendant, appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "GEORGE A. DEESE, Administrator of the Estate of GEORGE M. DEESE, v. CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY.\n(Filed 28 November, 1951.)\nElectricity \u00a7 7\u2014\nIntestate felled a tree across a tap line maintained by defendant power company under a written easement, and was electrocuted when lie came in contact with the wire while attempting to disengage the tree top from the line. The wire was not insulated and was 18 feet or more above the ground. Held: Nonsuit was proper since defendant could not have reasonably foreseen injury under the circumstances, and therefore was not guilty of actionable negligence.\nJohnson, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.\nAppeal by plaintiff from Crisp, J., February 1951 Term, Richmond.\nThis is a civil action instituted by plaintiff to recover damages for the alleged wrongful death of his intestate.\nThe record shows that by authority of a written easement defendant maintained across plaintiff\u2019s land an uninsulated tap line 18 feet or more above the ground, which line was energized with approximately 2300 volts of electric current. Plaintiff\u2019s intestate felled a tree across defendant\u2019s tap line and while attempting to disengage the tree from the line, he came in contact, directly or indirectly, with the said line and was electrocuted. Plaintiff\u2019s intestate, a staff sergeant in the United States Army, was 29 years of age, and was on furlough visiting his father, the plaintiff, and other members of his family.\nAt the conclusion of plaintiff\u2019s evidence, the court sustained a motion for judgment as of nonsuit. Plaintiff appealed.\nJ ones <& J ones for plaintiff, appellant.\nFred W. Bynum and A. Y. Arledge for defendant, appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0558-01",
  "first_page_order": 604,
  "last_page_order": 605
}