Edwards v. T.A. Loving Co.

• Decision Date: 21 September 1932
• Docket Number: 59.
• Citation: 165 S.E. 356,203 N.C. 189
• Parties: EDWARDS v. T. A. LOVING CO. et al.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

165 S.E. 356

203 N.C. 189

EDWARDS v. T. A. LOVING CO. et al.

No. 59.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

September 21, 1932

Appeal from Superior Court, Wilson County; Frizzelle, Judge.

Proceedings under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Helen Edwards widow of Albert Edwards, claimant, opposed by the T. A Loving Company, employer, and the American Casualty Company and another, insurers. From the judgment affirming the Industrial Commission's award in favor of claimant, the American Casualty Company appeals.

Affirmed.

Employee's injury occurring while riding to work in conveyance operated by employer to transport employees to work "arose out of and in course of employment."--

Connor & Hill, of Wilson, for T. A. Loving Co.

W. S Wilkinson, Jr., of Rocky Mount, for American Casualty Co.

CLARKSON J.

The questions involved in this appeal are: (1) Was the American Casualty Company the insurance carrier of the compensation risk of T. A. Loving Company on its Lillington, N. C project? We think so. (2)Was Albert Edwards an employee of T. A. Loving Company on its Lillington project at the time of the occurrence of the accident which resulted in his death? We think so.

The Industrial Commissioner, J. Dewey Dorsett, found the facts, and there is evidence in the record to sustain them, and upon the findings of facts based his conclusions of law; and on appeal to the full commission the findings of fact and conclusions of law were sustained. An appeal was taken to the superior court, and the court below rendered the following judgment: "Now, therefore, the Court hereby adopts the Findings of Fact and the opinion of the Full Commission herein and finds as a fact that such facts as were found by the commission were founded upon and supported by, the evidence adduced herein and it is further ordered, adjudged and decreed that the action by the said North Carolina Industrial Commission and the Opinion of the Full Commission rendered herein, be and the same are hereby in all respects affirmed." From the judgment an appeal was taken to the Supreme Court.

The evidence was to the effect, and so found: That Albert Edwards was upon a conveyance to go to his place of work, which was provided by his employer for the sole use of his employees and which the employees were required or entitled to use by virtue of the contract of employment. He was injured while riding to his work in a conveyance owned and operated by...