{
  "id": 8626941,
  "name": "A. L. WILSON v. GEIGY & COMPANY, a Corporation",
  "name_abbreviation": "Wilson v. Geigy & Co.",
  "decision_date": "1952-11-26",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "566",
  "last_page": "567",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "236 N.C. 566"
    }
  ],
  "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": 229,
    "char_count": 2835,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.493,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.1420408488207927e-07,
      "percentile": 0.5792297157092943
    },
    "sha256": "4eccc95433c54ce659aeca996a7480e587a2ddc86eb1aba8f3c4445a0f642ea4",
    "simhash": "1:9a677de13ae6e2d6",
    "word_count": 460
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:03:47.341722+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Parser, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of this ease."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "A. L. WILSON v. GEIGY & COMPANY, a Corporation."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nTaking the evidence offered by plaintiff in the light most favorable to him, and giving to him the benefit of every reasonable intendment upon the evidence, and reasonable inference to be drawn therefrom, as is done when considering a demurrer thereto under G.S. 1-183, the evidence is insufficient to make out a case of actionable negligence. The element of causal relation between the dust from defendant\u2019s plant and the injury to plaintiff\u2019s tobacco crop is missing. The establishment of that relation may not be based upon speculation or conjecture.\nHence the judgment below is\nAffirmed.\nParser, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of this ease.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Robert L. McMillan, Jr., and Herbert F. Seawell, Jr., for plaintiff, appellant.",
      "Spence <& Boyette for defendant, appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "A. L. WILSON v. GEIGY & COMPANY, a Corporation.\n(Filed 26 November, 1952.)\nDamages \u00a7 la\u2014\nCompensatory damages may not be recovered for damage to a tobacco crop when plaintiffs evidence fails to establish any causal connection between tbe dust from defendant\u2019s chemical plant which settled on the crop and injury to the crop.\nParker, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of this ease.\nAppeal by plaintiff from Nettles, J., at March Term, 1952, of Moobe.\nCivil action to recover for damage to plaintiff\u2019s tobacco crop allegedly caused by actionable negligence of defendant in that it negligently permitted \u201chighly toxic and poisonous dust including benezine hexachloride-dust,\u201d emanating from tbe manufacture of insecticide at its plant, to escape and spread to and over plaintiff\u2019s nearby field of growing tobacco causing injury thereto.\nDefendant denies, in material aspects, the allegations of the complaint.\nUpon trial in Superior Court plaintiff offered evidence tending to show these facts: In late July and early August, 1949 : (1) Fogs of dust from defendant\u2019s chemical plant spread over and settled on plaintiff\u2019s tobacco crop, and \u201ca very strong odor of benezine hexachloride\u201d was noticed. (2) Plaintiff had an airplane dust the tobacco \u2014 blowing dust on it. (3) There was a drought. But there is no other evidence as to the kind or quality of dust emanating from defendant\u2019s plant, or blown from the airplane. The tobacco \u201cburned up and rotted off.\u201d\nAnd plaintiff\u2019s expert witness gave this pertinent summary: \u201cThere were two types of trouble there. One was the killing of the leaves, and the other was the odor on the tobacco, the bad smell. The injury was not evident to me. I couldn\u2019t be sure just what caused it. And there was one more factor and it was what per cent should be attributed to various factors.\u201d\nMotion of defendant for judgment as of nonsuit, entered at close of plaintiff\u2019s evidence, was allowed \u2014 and from judgment in accordance therewith plaintiff appeals to Supreme Court and assigns error.\nRobert L. McMillan, Jr., and Herbert F. Seawell, Jr., for plaintiff, appellant.\nSpence <& Boyette for defendant, appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0566-01",
  "first_page_order": 618,
  "last_page_order": 619
}