Cole v. Guilford County and Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co., 600

Decision Date14 June 1963
Docket NumberNo. 600,600
Citation259 N.C. 724,131 S.E.2d 308
CourtNorth Carolina Supreme Court
PartiesWilliam M. COLE, Executor of the Estate of Elizabeth M. Cole, William M. Cole, Individually, and Clarence E. Cole, Mae Cole Long, Jack B. Cole, and Edna Cole Brasher, Next of Kin of Elizabeth M. Cole, Deceased, v. GUILFORD COUNTY AND HARTFORD ACCIDENT & INDEMNITY COMPANY.

Falk, Carruthers & Roth, Greensboro, for plaintiff appellees.

Adams, Kleemeier, Hagan & Hannah, Greensboro, for defendant appellants.

SHARP, Justice.

Under the Workmen's Compensation Act a compensable death is one which results to an employee from an injury by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. G.S. § 97-2(6); Slade v. Willis Hosiery Mills, 209 N.C. 823, 184 S.E. 844; Plemmons v. White's Service, 213 N.C. 148, 195 S.E. 370.

In our view of this case, it is not necessary to decide the interesting question whether a juror serving during a term of the Superior Court is an employee of the county. Assuming arguendo that Mrs. Cole was such an employee, we are confronted by the query, did the fall which caused her death arise out of her service as a juror?

Whether an accident arises out of the employment is a mixed question of fact and law, and the finding of the Commission is conclusive if supported by any competent evidence; otherwise, not. Slade v. Willis Hosiery Mills, supra; Lockey v. Cohen, Goldman & Co., 213 N.C. 356, 196 S.E. 342. The words 'out of,' refer to the origin or cause of the accident and the words 'in the course of,' to the time, place and circumstances under which it occurred. Plemmons v. White's Service, supra. For an accident to arise out of the employment there must be some causal connection between the injury and the employment. When an injury cannot fairly be traced to the employment as a contributing proximate cause, or if it comes from a hazard to which the employee would have been equally exposed apart from the employment, or from the hazard common to others, it does not arise out of the employment. Lewter v. Enterprises, Inc., 240 N.C. 399, 82 S.E.2d 410. In such a situation the fact that the injury occurred on the employer's premises is immaterial. Poteete v. North State Pyrophyllite, 240 N.C. 561, 82 S.E.2d 693.

A fall itself is usually regarded as an accident. In Robbins v. Bossong Hosiery Mills, 220 N.C. 246, 17 S.E.2d 20, the claimant, a topper in a hosiery mill, reached up toward a rack to get work to put on her machine. For some undisclosed reason she lost her balance and fell. In sustaining the award of compensation for the injury suffered in the fall, Barnhill, J., (later C. J.) said:

'The decisions in somewhat similar cases may be divided into two distinct groups * * *

'The logic of these decisions is this: where the employee, while about his work, suffers an injury in the ordinary course of the employment, the cause of which is unexplained but which is a natural and probable result of a risk thereof, and the Commission finds from all the attendant facts and circumstances that the injury arose out of the employment, an award will be sustained. If, however, the cause is known and is independent of, unrelated to and apart from the employment, the result of a hazard to which others are equally exposed, compensation will not be allowed. Herein lies the distinction which is bottomed upon the rule of liberal construction.'

In DeVine v. Dave Steel Co., 227 N.C. 684, 44 S.E.2d 77, the cause of claimant's fall at the base of a flag pole was unexplained and recovery was allowed even though it was known that he was subject to mild epileptic seizures. However, in the instant case, the cause of Mrs. Cole's unfortunate fall is known--her leg simply gave way because of a physical infirmity, the nature of which we do not know. The fact that she was...

To continue reading

Request your trial
37 cases
  • Locklear v. Palm Harbor Homes, Inc., No. COA08-1562 (N.C. App. 12/8/2009)
    • United States
    • North Carolina Court of Appeals
    • 8 Dicembre 2009
    ...S.E.2d 760, 762 (1980) (citing Willis v. Drapery Plant, 29 N.C. App. 386, 224 S.E.2d 287 (1976)); see also Cole v. Guilford County, 259 N.C. 724, 727, 131 S.E.2d 308, 311 (1963) (stating that "[a] fall itself is usually regarded as an accident") (citing Robbins v. Hosiery Mills, 220 N.C. 24......
  • Hansel v. Sherman Textiles, 107
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • 6 Ottobre 1981
    ...which would support a finding to the contrary. Inscoe v. Industries, Inc., 292 N.C. 210, 232 S.E.2d 449 (1977); Cole v. Guilford County, 259 N.C. 724, 131 S.E.2d 308 (1963); Vause v. Equipment Co., 233 N.C. 88, 63 S.E.2d 173 (1951); 8 Strongs N.C. Index 3d, Master and Servant § 96, and case......
  • Murray v. Associated Insurers, Inc.
    • United States
    • North Carolina Court of Appeals
    • 3 Maggio 1994
    ...is unknown and the Commission finds that the injury arose out of the employment, an award will be sustained. Cole v. Guilford County, 259 N.C. 724, 727, 131 S.E.2d 308, 311 (1963). However, even assuming arguendo that decedent's stroke did cause the accident, under Allred, supra, decedent's......
  • Harless v. Flynn
    • United States
    • North Carolina Court of Appeals
    • 10 Luglio 1968
    ... ... Poteete v. North State Pyrophyllite Co., 240 N.C. 561, 82 S.E.2d 693; Conrad v ... Cole v. Guilford County, 259 N.C. 724, 131 S.E.2d 308 ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT