Kates v. . Harrison

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Kates v. . Harrison

198 S.E. 573, 214 N.C. 151, 1938 N.C. LEXIS 287

DecidedSeptember 21, 1938

StatusPublished

This text of 198 S.E. 573 (Kates v. . Harrison) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Kates v. . Harrison, 198 S.E. 573, 214 N.C. 151, 1938 N.C. LEXIS 287 (N.C. 1938).

Pincite

Opinion

The plaintiff brought action for damages alleged to have been sustained by him through the negligence of the defendant. The complaint contains the allegation that defendant had not brought himself within the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act. *Page 152

The evidence tends to show that the plaintiff was employed by the defendant in the sale of parts from used automobiles on the defendant's premises. The cars were arranged in rows, with a roadway between them. Some of the cars, however, were close together, about four feet apart, and some not more than twelve inches apart.

On the day of the alleged injury two customers wanted a connecting rod out of a '28 Whippet Sedan. While the plaintiff was hunting a "jack" to lift the car body he observed the customers attempting to lift the car up by pulling upon the running board. Thinking that they needed help, plaintiff took hold of the running board with them, and the three of them started to turn the car over so as to get the "pan" and get out the connecting rod. The door flew open on the other side, struck the ground, and became an obstruction against turning the car over. The other persons lifting the car turned it loose, leaving the entire load upon the plaintiff. Plaintiff says he could not step back out of the way because there was a car too close behind him.

There was evidence relating to the injury alleged to have been caused by the car striking the plaintiff on the side, under the above circumstances. The evidence does not disclose that the plaintiff was at the time ordered to do this work in this way by a superior. The evidence does not show that the alleged injury was the natural and probable consequence of any negligent act or omission of duty attributable to defendant, and the judgment is therefore.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

The plaintiff brought action for damages alleged to have been sustained by him through the negligence of the defendant. The complaint contains the allegation that defendant had not brought himself within the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act. *Page 152

The evidence tends to show that the plaintiff was employed by the defendant in the sale of parts from used automobiles on the defendant's premises. The cars were arranged in rows, with a roadway between them. Some of the cars, however, were close together, about four feet apart, and some not more than twelve inches apart.

On the day of the alleged injury two customers wanted a connecting rod out of a '28 Whippet Sedan. While the plaintiff was hunting a "jack" to lift the car body he observed the customers attempting to lift the car up by pulling upon the running board. Thinking that they needed help, plaintiff took hold of the running board with them, and the three of them started to turn the car over so as to get the "pan" and get out the connecting rod. The door flew open on the other side, struck the ground, and became an obstruction against turning the car over. The other persons lifting the car turned it loose, leaving the entire load upon the plaintiff. Plaintiff says he could not step back out of the way because there was a car too close behind him.

There was evidence relating to the injury alleged to have been caused by the car striking the plaintiff on the side, under the above circumstances. The evidence does not disclose that the plaintiff was at the time ordered to do this work in this way by a superior. The evidence does not show that the alleged injury was the natural and probable consequence of any negligent act or omission of duty attributable to defendant, and the judgment is therefore.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

198 S.E. 573, 214 N.C. 151, 1938 N.C. LEXIS 287, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kates-v-harrison-nc-1938.