Hill v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co.

• Decision Date: 01 March 1950
• Docket Number: No. 93,93
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: HILL, v. ATLANTIC COAST LINE R. CO.

Page 781

57 S.E.2d 781

231 N.C. 499

HILL, v. ATLANTIC COAST LINE R. CO.

No. 93

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 1, 1950

Cooley & May, Nashville, and Battle, Winslow, & Merrell, Rocky Mount, for plaintiff, appellee.

M. V. Barnhill, Jr., Wilmington, and F. S. Spruill, Rocky Mount, for defendant, appellant.

DEVIN, Justice.

This case was here at Fall Term, 1948, on the appeal of the plaintiff from a judgment of nonsuit and is reported in 229 N.C. 236, 49 S.E.2d 481, 482, where the material facts are stated. On the former appeal we affirmed, on the ground that the record was wanting in evidence of actionable negligence. The ratio decidendi was stated in the opinion of this Court as follows: 'Upon the evidence presented, as it appears of record, the judgment of nonsuit was properly entered. The evidence fails to show, under the circumstances here, any duty incumbent upon the workmen on the cars, in unloading crossties in the usual way, to anticipate the movements and position of the plaintiff at the time of injury. * * * Stated briefly, the evidence fails to make out a case of actionable negligence.'

On plaintiff's petition to the Supreme Court of the United States for writ of certiorari that Court rendered the following judgment, 336 U.S. 911, 69 S.Ct. 507: 'PerCuriam: The petition for writ of certiorari is granted and the judgment of the Supreme Court of North Carolina, 229 N.C. 236, 49 S.E.2d 481, is reversed. See Tiller v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 1943, 318 U.S. 54, 63 S.Ct. 444, 87 L.Ed. 610, 143 A.L.R. 967; Bailey v. Central Vermont R. Co., 1943, 319 U.S. 350, 63 S.Ct. 1062, 87 L.Ed. 1444; and Eillis v. Union Pacific R. Co., 1947, 329 U.S. 649, 67 S.Ct. 598, 91 L.Ed. 572.'

Thereafter in conformity with this decision the cause was remanded to the Superior Court of Nash County for trial. On the subsequent hearing issues of negligence and contributory negligence were submitted to the jury and answered in the affirmative, and damages awarded in sum of $22,000. From judgment on the verdict the defendant appealed to this Court assigning as error, inter alia, the denial by the trial court of its motion for judgment of nonsuit. The evidence adduced on the second trial was substantially the same as that which appears in the record of the previous trial.

While this Court was of opinion that the evidence offered on the first trial was insufficient to show negligence on the part of the defendant, and that the judgment of nonsuit was properly entered, on the plaintiff's petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court of the United States the decision of this Court was 'reversed.' The per curiam opinion did not amplify this brief judgment of reversal.

However, as the previous decision of this Court was that the evidence was insufficient to make out a case of negligence, and the ruling was only on the question of nonsuit, the judgment of reversal must be interpreted as a holding by our highest court that there was evidence sufficient to carry the case to the...