Parks v. . Sanford Brooks, Inc.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Parks v. . Sanford Brooks, Inc.

144 S.E. 925, 196 N.C. 36, 1928 N.C. LEXIS 267

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedSeptember 12, 1928

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 144 S.E. 925 (Parks v. . Sanford Brooks, Inc.) 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

Parks v. . Sanford Brooks, Inc., 144 S.E. 925, 196 N.C. 36, 1928 N.C. LEXIS 267 (N.C. 1928).

Pincite

Opinion

Pee Cueiam.

In her complaint plaintiff alleges that the death of her intestate was caused by the negligence of defendants, in that they failed to exercise due care to furnish her intestate a reasonably safe place in which to work as an employee of defendant, Sanford & Brooks, Inc., under the supervision of the other defendants, the general manager and foreman of their said codefendant.

The evidence offered by plaintiff fails to sustain this allegation. It appears from said evidence that plaintiff’s intestate, while at work on á bridge over the Chowan River, fell from said bridge into the river and was drowned. Deceased was standing on a platform, 26 inches wide, sawing a plank in order to fit it around a pile. His saw “pinched,” causing deceased to lose his balance and to fall off the platform into the river. The evidence tends to show that the fall was due to an accident, and not to any negligence on the part of defendants, or either of them. There was no error in allowing defendants’ motion for judgment as of nonsuit upon the evidence offered by plaintiff.

Nor was there error in the ruling of the court sustaining objections by defendants to testimony offered by plaintiff as evidence of defendants’ negligence. Whether or not the place at which plaintiff’s intestate was at work, when he fell into the river, was unsafe, because of the negligence of defendants, was the question to be passed upon by the jury, the opinion of the witnesses with respect to this matter was not competent as evidence upon the issue, and was properly excluded as evidence. Wilson v. Suncrest Lumber Co., 186 N. C., 56, 118 S. E., 797.

The judgment dismissing the action as upon nonsuit is

Affirmed.

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

Pee Cueiam.

In her complaint plaintiff alleges that the death of her intestate was caused by the negligence of defendants, in that they failed to exercise due care to furnish her intestate a reasonably safe place in which to work as an employee of defendant, Sanford & Brooks, Inc., under the supervision of the other defendants, the general manager and foreman of their said codefendant.

The evidence offered by plaintiff fails to sustain this allegation. It appears from said evidence that plaintiff’s intestate, while at work on á bridge over the Chowan River, fell from said bridge into the river and was drowned. Deceased was standing on a platform, 26 inches wide, sawing a plank in order to fit it around a pile. His saw “pinched,” causing deceased to lose his balance and to fall off the platform into the river. The evidence tends to show that the fall was due to an accident, and not to any negligence on the part of defendants, or either of them. There was no error in allowing defendants’ motion for judgment as of nonsuit upon the evidence offered by plaintiff.

Nor was there error in the ruling of the court sustaining objections by defendants to testimony offered by plaintiff as evidence of defendants’ negligence. Whether or not the place at which plaintiff’s intestate was at work, when he fell into the river, was unsafe, because of the negligence of defendants, was the question to be passed upon by the jury, the opinion of the witnesses with respect to this matter was not competent as evidence upon the issue, and was properly excluded as evidence. Wilson v. Suncrest Lumber Co., 186 N. C., 56, 118 S. E., 797.

The judgment dismissing the action as upon nonsuit is

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

144 S.E. 925, 196 N.C. 36, 1928 N.C. LEXIS 267, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/parks-v-sanford-brooks-inc-nc-1928.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack