Hensley v. Farmers Federation Co-op., CO-OPERATIV
Decision Date | 22 May 1957 |
Docket Number | CO-OPERATIV,E,No. 94,94 |
Citation | 246 N.C. 274,98 S.E.2d 289 |
Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Parties | Baxter HENSLEY, Employee, v. FARMERS FEDERATIONmployer; Nationwide Insurance Companies, Carrier. |
Williams & Williams, Asheville, for defendant-appellant.
No counsel contra.
The crucial question presented by the exceptions is: Does the evidence suffice to show that plaintiff, in the course of his employment, sustained a compensable hernia?
Defendants' exceptions necessitate a review of the evidence. We do so in conformity with the well-settled rule that findings of fact made by the Commission are, when supported by any evidence, conclusive on appeal. Plaintiff is entitled to urge, in support of the findings, every reasonable inference which can be drawn from the testimony; but when all the evidence and the inferences to be drawn therefrom result in only one conclusion, liability is a question of law subject to review. Thomason v. Red Bird Cab Co., 235 N.C. 602, 70 S.E.2d 706; Henry v. A. C. Lawrence Leather Co., 231 N.C. 477, 57 S.E.2d 760; Perley v. Ballenger Paving Co., 228 N.C. 479, 46 S.E.2d 298; Smith v. Southern Waste Paper Co., 226 N.C. 47, 36 S.E.2d 730.
If the Commission in its findings of fact used the words 'twisted,' 'normal,' and 'twist' in the sense that there was something abnormal in plaintiff's movement when he felt the pain, the finding is not supported by the evidence. We understand the Commission used the words 'twisted' and 'twist' as meaning 'turned' and 'turn' and the word 'normal' as the equivalent of 'usual.' When so understood, they accord with plaintiff's testimony. He did not use any of the quoted words.
He described his work in this manner:
With respect to the moment of injury he said: On cross-examination he said:
The normal manner of operation at the moment he felt the pain is emphasized by questions asked later in the testimony.
Dr. Chapman, who treated plaintiff, found the hernia when he first examined him on 3 September. He expressed the opinion that work of the kind and done in the manner described by plaintiff could have caused the hernia.
A hernia, to be compensable, must, by the express language of our statute, G.S. § 97-2, meet five conditions:
Injury is defined as 'Damage or hurt done to or suffered by a person or thing.' Webster's Int. Dic.
The evidence is sufficient to justify a finding that plaintiff had an injury resulting in hernia. The first requirement is met.
For the purpose of this case it may be conceded that the second requirement is established.
Plaintiff so testified. The Commission accepted his testimony. The third requirement is met.
Where is the evidence to support an affirmative finding to this condition? What is an accident? The mere fact that plaintiff suffered an injury does not establish the fact of accident.
The Workmen's Compensation Act was enacted in 1929. At the Spring Term 1930 the word 'accident,' as used in the Act, was defined. Justice Adams said: 'The word 'accident,' as used here, has been defined as an unlooked for and untoward event which is not expected or designed by the person who suffers the injury.' Conrad v. Cook-Lewis Foundry Company, 198 N.C. 723, 153 S.E. 266, 268.
The distinction between and necessity of both injury and accident was emphasized in Slade v. Willis Hosiery Mills, 209 N.C. 823, 184 S.E. 844, 845, decided Spring Term 1936. There an employee, performing his work in the usual and customary manner, got wet and contracted pncumonia. Stacy, C. J., said:
The rule enunciated in the Slade case that death or injury sustained as a result of work by the employee in his usual, customary manner and without some fortuitous event is not compensable was reiterated the following year in Neely v. City of Statesville, 212 N.C. 365, 193 S.E. 664, 665. There a fireman died from a heart attack while engaged in fighting a fire. The Court said:
Moore v. Engineering & Sales Co., 214 N.C. 424, 199 S.E. 605, 608, was decided at the Fall Term 1938. Plaintiff claimed compensation for hernia. He was injured while helping in the lifting of heavy pipes. The Commission found the hernia Compensable and awarded compensation. The award was affirmed. The defendants there insisted that compensation was forbidden by the decisions in the Slade and Neely cases, supra. Justice Seawell, responding to this argument, said: 'This could be so only to the extent that the cases were on all-fours, since the Neely case [supra] and the Slade case [supra] merely applied well known principles of law to the circumstances peculiar to those cases.' He then points to the difference, viz., the injured employee was not accustomed to do that kind and character of heavy work. He said: 'In the case at bar, there is in the foregoing sufficient evidence of the interruption of the routine of work, and the introduction thereby of unusual conditions likely to result in unexpected consequences, and these were of such a character as to justify the Industrial Commission in finding that plaintiff's injury was the result of accident.'
A similar result was reached in Gabriel v. Town of Newton, 227 N.C. 314, 42 S.E.2d 96, where there was unusual and unexpected exertion and straining in the performance of duties, thus producing the heart attack which resulted in death.
Smith v. Cabarrus Creamery Co., 217 N.C. 468, 8 S.E. 231, was decided in 1940. The Court was again called upon to determine liability in hernia cases. Factually the case came within the rule announced by the Court in Moore v. Engineering & Sales Co., supra, and hence outside of the rule laid down in the Slade and Neely cases, supra. This was frankly recognized by Justice Seawell, who wrote the opinion. Having announced the fact, he uses language which lends support to the argument that the Court intended to adopt a new rule and hold that injury and accident were...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Legette v. Scotland Memorial Hosp.
...the injury.'" Porter v. Shelby Knit, Inc., 46 N.C.App. 22, 26, 264 S.E.2d 360, 363 (1980) (quoting Hensley v. Farmers Federation Coop., 246 N.C. 274, 278, 98 S.E.2d 289, 292 (1957)). "The elements of an `accident' are the interruption of the routine of work and the introduction thereby of u......
-
Hill v. Fed. Express Corp.
...is not compensable.” Porter v. Shelby Knit, Inc., 46 N.C.App. 22, 26, 264 S.E.2d 360, 363 (1980) (quoting Hensley v. Cooperative, 246 N.C. 274, 278, 98 S.E.2d 289, 292 (1957), and citing Pardue v. Tire Co., 260 N.C. 413, 132 S.E.2d 747 (1963), and O'Mary v. Clearing Corp., 261 N.C. 508, 135......
-
Bowles v. CTS of Asheville, Inc.
...of the work routine or otherwise an "injury by accident" under the Workers' Compensation Act. See, e.g., Hensley v. Farmers Federation Cooperative, 246 N.C. 274, 98 S.E.2d 289 (1957) (twisting movement became part of job); Trudell v. Seven Lakes Heating & Air Conditioning Co., 55 N.C.App. 8......
-
Hyler v. GTE Products Co.
...done by the Legislature, the law-making power. If, in its wisdom, a change is desirable, it can readily do so. Hensley v. Cooperative, 246 N.C. 274, 281, 98 S.E.2d 289, 294 (1957), quoted in O'Mary v. Clearing Corp., 261 N.C. 508, 511, 135 S.E.2d 193, 195 (1964). In our interpretation of th......