{ "id": 8573280, "name": "HENRY A. MONK v. TRAVIS H. FLANAGAN, t/a GREENVILLE TOBACCO CURING COMPANY, and CHARLIE BARNES", "name_abbreviation": "Monk v. Flanagan", "decision_date": "1965-02-24", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "797", "last_page": "798", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "263 N.C. 797" } ], "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": "90 S.E. 2d 392", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "243 N.C. 268", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8623818 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/243/0268-01" ] }, { "cite": "81 S.E. 2d 368", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "240 N.C. 143", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8595732 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/240/0143-01" ] }, { "cite": "133 S.E. 12", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "191 N.C. 722", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8631258 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/191/0722-01" ] }, { "cite": "97 S.E. 2d 411", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "246 N.C. 108", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8624582 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/246/0108-01" ] }, { "cite": "70 S.E. 2d 670", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "235 N.C. 607", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8626235 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/235/0607-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 248, "char_count": 2993, "ocr_confidence": 0.583, "pagerank": { "raw": 8.41186757842258e-08, "percentile": 0.4829723663425937 }, "sha256": "c348269885afcbf423a2aa4980a0d85be1672be1ab3636573bd45cc520683b42", "simhash": "1:c203d579180d3454", "word_count": 513 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:44:48.035422+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "HENRY A. MONK v. TRAVIS H. FLANAGAN, t/a GREENVILLE TOBACCO CURING COMPANY, and CHARLIE BARNES." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "PeR CuRiam.\nA critical study of plaintiff\u2019s evidence, considered in the light most favorable to him, leads us to the conclusion that plaintiff has failed to show any actionable negligence on the part of the defendants, or either of them, resulting in his unfortunate injuries. Plaintiff has no evidence that would reasonably warrant an inference of fact' that the flying open of the door of the \u201cpot burner\u201d when he turned its knob, and the eruption therefrom of a blast of hot steam, scalding oil and hot ashes and soot was caused by any act of defendants. \u201cAn inference of negligence cannot rest on conjecture or surmise. [Citing authority.] This is necessarily so because an inference is a permissible conclusion drawn by reason from a premise established by proof.\u201d Sowers v. Marley, 235 N.C. 607, 70 S.E. 2d 670. His evidence leaves it all in the realm of mere conjecture, surmise, and speculation, and one surmise may be as good as another. Nobody knows. \u201cA cause of action must be something more than a guess.\u201d Lane v. Bryan, 246 N.C. 108, 97 S.E. 2d 411. \u201cAny other interpretation of the law would unloose a jury to wander aimlessly in the fields of speculation.\u201d Poovey v. Sugar Co., 191 N.C. 722, 133 S.E. 12. \u201cCases cannot be submitted to a jury on speculations, guesses or conjectures.\u201d Hopkins v. Comer, 240 N.C. 143, 81 S.E. 2d 368. A resort to a choice of possibilities is guesswork, not decision. Hanrahan v. Walgreen Co., 243 N.C. 268, 90 S.E. 2d 392.\nThe judgment of involuntary nonsuit is\nAffirmed.", "type": "majority", "author": "PeR CuRiam." } ], "attorneys": [ "Willis A.. Tait\u00f3n for plaintiff appellant.", "James and Speight by William C. Brewer, Jr. and W. W. Speight for defendant appellees." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "HENRY A. MONK v. TRAVIS H. FLANAGAN, t/a GREENVILLE TOBACCO CURING COMPANY, and CHARLIE BARNES.\n(Filed 24 February, 1965.)\nNegligence \u00a7 24a\u2014\nEvidence that plaintiff was injured when he turned the knob on the door of a tobacco curing \u201cpot burner\u201d and as a result the door flew open and a blast of hot steam, scalding oil, hot ashes and soot erupted onto his right arm, held, insufficient to overrule nonsuit, since an inference of negligence cannot rest on conjecture or surmise, but only upon a premise established by proof.\nAppeal by plaintiff from Morris, J., 21 September 1964 Civil Session of Pitt.\nAction of tort to recover damages for personal injuries sustained when plaintiff, who was engaged in curing tobacco in a barn, turned the knob on the door of a tobacco curing burner, commonly referred to as a \u201cpot burner,\u201d and as a result the door flew open and a blast of hot steam, scalding oil and hot ashes and soot erupted from the \u201cpot burner\u201d onto his right hand and arm. That such explosion was allegedly caused by the negligence of Flanagan, t/a Greenville Tobacco Curing Company, acting through and. by his agent Barnes, in installing, adjusting, repairing, and changing this \u201cpot burner\u201d and the smokestack incident to its operation.\nFrom a judgment of involuntary nonsuit entered at the close of plaintiff\u2019s evidence, he appeals.\nWillis A.. Tait\u00f3n for plaintiff appellant.\nJames and Speight by William C. Brewer, Jr. and W. W. Speight for defendant appellees." }, "file_name": "0797-01", "first_page_order": 835, "last_page_order": 836 }