Hickman v. O. M. Rutledge & Co.
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Civil actioN, tried at November Term, 1916, of GraveN, before Lyon, J., upon these issues: 1. Was plaintiff injured by the negligence of the defendant, as alleged in the complaint ? Answer: “Yes.” 2. Did.the plaintiff, by bis own negligence, contribute to bis injury? Answer: “No.” 3. What damage is plaintiff entitled to recover? Answer: “$310.30.” From the judgment rendered, defendant appealed.
1Opinion of the CourtBeowN, J.
The motion to nonsuit was properly overruled. The evidence, taken in its most favorable light for plaintiff, as is proper 'upon such motions, tends to establish these facts:
The plaintiff was employed by the defendant on 7 August, 1915, and was engaged in loading logs on a truck by means of two skid poles, one end of the log on the truck and the other end on the ground, with a chain around the log attached to the harness of a mule, which pulled the logs upon the truck while he and another man, one at each end of the log, were guiding the log up the skid poles, keeping it straight. When .the…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Brown v. Cook-Lewis Foundry Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1915
- Smith v. Southern Railway Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1915
3Cited by1 opinion
- Wright v. . ThompsonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1916