Neville v. Bonsal
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Appeal by defendant from Devin, J., at December Term7 1913, of OraNG-b. Civil action. These issues were submitted to the jury; 1. Was the plaintiff’s intestate killed through the negligence of the defendants, as alleged in the complaint? Answer: Yes. 2. Did the plaintiff’s intestate assume the risk, as alleged in the answer? Answer: No. 3. What sum, if any, is the plaintiff entitled to recover? Answer: $1,300. From the judgment rendered, the defendants appealed.
1Opinion of the Court
Pek Oubiam:.
The motion to nonsuit was properly overruled. The evidence tends to prove that the plaintiff’s intestate was *219employed by tbe defendants at work in a gravel pit, and was killed by tbe dirt piling up over him,'Caused by a cave-in; that tbe conditions there were sucb that there was á high bank, tbe plaintiff contends, 18 to possibly 20 feet high, perpendicular; that be was employed in working in connection with a steam shovel that was excavating at this place; that there was at tbe base of this bank of earth or well a certain amount of earth along its base which, as the plaintiff…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Mace v. Carolina Mineral Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1915
- MacE v. . Mineral Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1915
- O'Neal v. . JonesSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1930