Case Name: W. M. JOHNSON, Administrator, v. ATLANTIC COAST LINE RAILROAD COMPANY
Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jurisdiction: North Carolina
Decision Date: 1912-04-10
Citations: 159 N.C. 442
Docket Number: 
Parties: W. M. JOHNSON, Administrator, v. ATLANTIC COAST LINE RAILROAD COMPANY.
Judges: 
Reporter: North Carolina Reports
Volume: 159
Pages: 442–442

Head Matter:
W. M. JOHNSON, Administrator, v. ATLANTIC COAST LINE RAILROAD COMPANY.
(Filed 10 April, 1912.)
Appeal and Error — Evidence—Nonsuit.
In this action for the wrongful killing of plaintiff’s intestate, a judgment of nonsuit on the evidence was properly denied, the negligence of the defendant’s conductor in giving the signal to start being sufficient, under the circumstances, to take the case to the jury.
Appeal from Goolce, Jat November Term, 1911, of Chat-ham.
This was a civil action. These issues were submitted to the jury:
1. Was the plaintiff’s intestate killed by the negligence of the defendant ?
2. Did plaintiff’s intestate, by bis own negligence, contribute to bis injury?
3. What amount, if any, is plaintiff entitled to recover from the defendant?
The jury answered the first issue “Yes,” the second issue “No,” and the third issue “$5,000.”
N. Y. Gulley •& Son, B. H. Dixon and Hayes & Bynum for the plaintiff.
Bose & Bose and II. A. London & Son for the defendant. •

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
We have examined carefully the several assignments of error set out in the record, and we are of opinion that his Honor properly denied the motion f.or nonsuit.
We think that there was sufficient evidence to be submitted to the jury that the- intestate fell from the car by reason of negligence in giving the signal by the conductor at the moment he did. • We do not deem it necessary to discuss the facts, as these cases differ so materially from each other that a discussion of the evidence is of no material value.
We have examined the charge of his Honor, and think that he presented the case to the jury fairly and fully, and in accordance with the well-settled precedent of this Court.
The judgment of the Superior Court is
Affirmed.