Brooks v. Carolina Rim & Wheel Co
| Decision Date | 04 May 1938 |
| Docket Number | No. 534.,534. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | BROOKS. v. CAROLINA RIM & WHEEL CO. et al. |
Appeal from Superior Court, Mecklenburg County; Wilson Warlick, Judge.
Proceeding for compensation for injuries by R. C. Brooks, claimant, against Carolina Rim & Wheel Company, employer, and the Great American Indemnity Company, insurance carrier. Compensation was awarded, and the award was affirmed by the superior court, and the employer and insurance carrier appeal.
Affirmed.
Frank Exum and Fred B. Helms, both of Charlotte, for appellants.
John H. Small, Jr., and Walter Hoyle, both of Charlotte, for appellee.
This cause was heard in the superior court of Mecklenburg on appeal by the defendants, employer and insurance carrier, respectively, from an award in favor of the plaintiff, employee, made by the North Carolina Industrial Commission.
The principal assignments of error are to the adoption and affirmation by the court of the findings of fact of the commission that (1) "the injury by accident to the plaintiff on August 19, 1936, was not occasioned by the intoxication of the plaintiff"; that (2) "the contract of employment was made in this State, that the employer's place of business is in this State, that the plaintiff's residence is in this State, and that he was only temporarily residing in South Carolina, and that his contract of employment was not expressly for services exclusively outside of the State"; and that (3) the court concluded as a matter of law that the award of the commission should be affirmed,
The evidence bearing upon the question as to whether the injury "was occasioned by the intoxication of the employee" so as to bar compensation under section 8081(t), N.C.Code of 1935, Michie, wasconflicting. The plaintiff admitted that about four or five hours before the accident he had taken a "jigger" of whisky, but denied that the collision between his and another automobile on the highway in which he suffered the loss of an arm was occasioned by his intoxication. There was competent evidence to support the contention of both plaintiff and defendants upon this question, but, the commission having found as a fact that the accident in which the plaintiff was injured was not occasioned by his intoxication, the judge of the superior court was bound by such finding, and we are likewise so bound. Morgan v. Cloth Mills, 207 N.C. 317, 177 S.E. 165; West v. Fertilizer Co., 201 N.C. 556, 160 S.E. 765; Southern v. Cotton Mills Co., 200 N.C. 165, 156 S.E. 861.
There was ample evidence tending to show that the contract of employment was made in this State, that the employer's place of business was in this State, and that the plaintiff's contract of employment was not expressly for services exclusively outside of the State, and this evidence was practically uncontradicted; but the appellants contend that the finding of the fact that the plaintiff's residence was in this State, and that he was only temporarily residing in South Carolina, in which the accident occurred, was not warranted by the evidence. With this contention we...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mallard v. F. M. Bohannon Inc
...of the employee is in this State. All these circumstances must combine to give the jurisdiction." Brooks v. Carolina Rim & Wheel Co., 213 N.C. 518, 196 S.E. 835. In 71 Corpus Juris, Sec. 724, in part, at page 960, it is said: "Where the Act extends the jurisdiction of the Commission to inju......
-
Inscoe v. DeRose Industries, Inc.
...of showing the death was occasioned by the intoxication of the employee. As was said by this Court in the case of Brooks v. Rim & Wheel Co., 213 N.C. 518, 196 S.E. 835: 'There was competent evidence to support the contention of both plaintiff and defendant upon this question, but the Commis......
-
Inscoe v. DeRose Industries, Inc.
...by such finding, and we are likewise bound." Gant v. Crouch, supra at 607--8, 91 S.E.2d at 707, citing, Brooks v. Carolina Rim & Wheel Co., 213 N.C. 518, 519, 196 S.E. 835, 836 (1938). In Brooks v. Carolina Rim & Wheel Co., supra, the facts were somewhat similar to those in the instant case......
-
Osborne v. Colonial Ice Co.
...judge who reviews the case and is likewise binding on this Court on the appeal. Blalock v. City of Durham, supra; Brooks v. Carolina Rim & Wheel Co., 213 N.C. 518, 196 S.E. 835. In answering the third question presented, we call attention to the rule stated in the preceding paragraph. The c......