Case Name: THOMAS SETTLE et al. v. SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY and YANDLE BROS., CHARLES YANDLE COMPANY and CHARLES YANDLE
Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jurisdiction: North Carolina
Decision Date: 1909-05-19
Citations: 150 N.C. 643
Docket Number: 
Parties: THOMAS SETTLE et al. v. SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY and YANDLE BROS., CHARLES YANDLE COMPANY and CHARLES YANDLE.
Judges: 
Reporter: North Carolina Reports
Volume: 150
Pages: 643–644

Head Matter:
THOMAS SETTLE et al. v. SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY and YANDLE BROS., CHARLES YANDLE COMPANY and CHARLES YANDLE.
(Filed 19 May, 1909.)
1. Evidence, How Construed — Nonsuit.
The plaintiff’s evidence must be accepted as true and construed in a light most favorable to him, upon an appeal from a motion as of nonsuit upon the evidence.
2. Negligence — Evidence—Blasting—Dynamite—Nonsuit—Questions for Jury.
Evidence of negligence, in an action for damages caused by blasting, is sufficient to be submitted to the jury, and to refuse a motion as of nonsuit upon the evidence, which tends to show that plaintiff’s house was injured by concussions and vibrations resulting from defendant’s blasting, causing 200-pound rocks to be hurled a great distance across a river, and no attempt was made to confine or smother the blasts, in which over two hundred pounds of powder and twenty sticks of dynamite were used at a time.
ActioN tried before Ward, J., and a jury, at September Term, 1908, of Buncombe.
Defendants appealed.
J. C. Martin, J. H. Merrimon and J. G. Merrimon for plaintiffs.
Wells & Swain for defendants.
Walker, J., did not sit on the hearing of this case.

Opinion:
Brown, J.
Tbis action was originally instituted against the Southern Eailway Company and the above-named defendants, Tandle Bros., Charles Tandle Company and Charles Tandle, contractors, for damages to plaintiff's'house from blasting operations, conducted by the said contractors in constructing a track for the railway company. The suit was not prosecuted' against the latter, and judgment was obtained against the contractors. The jury found that the defendants were guilty.of negligence and that the property of plaintiffs had been injured by reason thereof. The only exception is to the refusal of the court to nonsuit the plaintiffs. On such motion the plaintiff's evidence must be accepted as true, and construed in the light most favorable to him. Millhiser v. Leatherwood, 140 N. C., 235.
There is much more than a scintilla of evidence in this case. The plaintiff's house was injured by concussions and vibrations, which were the result of blasting. Rocks weighing 200 pounds were hurled a great distance and across the French Broad River. No attempt was made to confine the blasts or to smother them. In making the blasts, as much as eight kegs (over two hundred pounds) of powder and twenty sticks of dynamite were used at a time. The evidence is much stronger than the evidence in Blackwell v. Railroad, 111 N. C., 151, and Kimberly v. Howland, 143 N. C., 398.
We are not prepared to say. that there is no evidence of negligence sufficient in probative force to be submitted to a jury.
The motion to nonsuit was properly overruled.
No Error.