Case Name: LUCILLE H. CHAPPEL, Administratrix of CHARLIE E. CHAPPEL, Deceased v. JOHN HARRIS OVERMAN
Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jurisdiction: North Carolina
Decision Date: 1962-09-19
Citations: 257 N.C. 672
Docket Number: 
Parties: LUCILLE H. CHAPPEL, Administratrix of CHARLIE E. CHAPPEL, Deceased v. JOHN HARRIS OVERMAN.
Judges: 
Reporter: North Carolina Reports
Volume: 257
Pages: 672–673

Head Matter:
LUCILLE H. CHAPPEL, Administratrix of CHARLIE E. CHAPPEL, Deceased v. JOHN HARRIS OVERMAN.
(Filed 19 September 1962.)
Appeal by plaintiff from Copeland, Special Judge, March Term 1962 of PeRquimaNS.
The defendant was the owner of a motor truck and trailer which he was using in his logging business. On 11 June 1960 the defendant transported on his motor truck and trailer a load of pilings to Pen-dleton’s Mill (a sawmill) in Pasquotank County. The load consisted of about nine to eleven pilings which averaged from 60 to 65 feet in length. The pilings were to be cut into logs in lengths from twelve to sixteen feet before the mill would purchase them.
Plaintiff’s intestate was engaged in cutting off the small end of the pilings which extended beyond the rear of the trailer. He was using his own portable power saw, and while engaged in sawing one of the pilings, two or three of the pilings rolled off the truck striking plaintiff’s intestate which resulted in his death.
Both plaintiff’s intestate and the defendant had been in the piling and logging business for several years, and the evidence tends to show that they had been working together for two months prior to the accident which resulted in the intestate’s death. The evidence further tends to show that plaintiff’s administratrix received one half of the proceeds from the sale of these logs.
At the close of plaintiff’s evidence the defendant moved for judgment as of nonsuit. Motion allowed. Plaintiff appeals, assigning error.
Charles E. Johnson and John H. Hall for appellant.
LeBoy, Wells & Shaw for appellee.

Opinion:
Pee Cueiam.
A careful review of the evidence adduced in the trial below leads us to the conclusion that the plaintiff failed to establish actionable negligence on the part of the defendant.
Affirmed.