Hoyle v. Isenhour Brick & Tile Co.

• Decision Date: 13 July 1982
• Docket Number: No. 82A82,82A82
• Citation: 306 N.C. 248,293 S.E.2d 196
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: Ernest HOYLE, Guardian ad Litem for Totisha Shannette Mason and Gerald Allen Mason, Jr., Minor Children of Gerald Allen Hoyle, Deceased, Employee, Plaintiff, v. ISENHOUR BRICK & TILE COMPANY, Employer, and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Carrier, Defendants.

Page 196

293 S.E.2d 196

306 N.C. 248

Ernest HOYLE, Guardian ad Litem for Totisha Shannette Mason and Gerald Allen Mason, Jr., Minor Children of Gerald Allen Hoyle, Deceased, Employee, Plaintiff, v. ISENHOUR BRICK & TILE COMPANY, Employer and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Carrier, Defendants.

No. 82A82.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

July 13, 1982.

Thomas A. McNeely, Charlotte, for plaintiff-appellant.

Hedrick, Feerick, Eatman, Gardner & Kincheloe by J. A. Gardner, III, Charlotte, for defendants-appellees.

BRANCH, Chief Justice.

The parties stipulated in instant case that the employee "was injured by accident on June 9, 1978," and that he "died on the same date as a result of those injuries."

Our Workers' Compensation Act affords compensation only for those injuries resulting from accidents "arising out of and in the course of the employment ...." G.S. 97-2(6). The issue of whether a particular accident arises out of and in the course of employment is a mixed question of fact and law, and this Court's review is limited on appeal to the question of whether the findings and conclusions are supported by competent evidence. Gallimore v. Marilyn's Shoes, 292 N.C. 399, 233 S.E.2d 529 (1977); Cole v. Guilford County, 259 N.C. 724, 131 S.E.2d 308 (1963). While often interrelated, the concepts of "arising out of" and "in the course of" employment are distinct elements, both of which must be established before compensation may be allowed. Gallimore v. Marilyn's Shoes, supra. The term "arising out of" refers to the origin or cause of the accident, and the term "in the course of" refers to the time, place, and circumstances of the accident. Gallimore v. Marilyn's Shoes, supra; Matthews v. Carolina Std. Corp., 232 N.C. 229, 60 S.E.2d 93 (1950); Davis v. Veneer Corp., 200 N.C. 263, 156 S.E. 859 (1931).

"An accident arising 'in the course of' the employment is one which occurs while 'the employee is doing what a man so employed may reasonably do within a time during which he is employed and at a place where he may reasonably be during that time to do that thing'; or one which 'occurs in the course of the employment and as the result of a risk involved in the employment, or incident to it, or to conditions under which it is required to be performed.' " Conrad v. Foundry Company, 198 N.C. 723, 153 S.E. 266.

In Perry v. Bakeries Co., 262 N.C. 272, 136 S.E.2d 643, Moore, J., speaking for the Court, said:

" 'The term "arising out of employment," it has been said, is broad and comprehensive and perhaps not capable of precise definition. It must be interpreted in the light of the facts and circumstances of each case, and there must be some causal connection between the injury and the employment.' To be compensable an injury must spring from the employment or have its origin therein. An injury arises out of the employment when it is a natural and probable consequence or incident of the employment and a natural result of one of its risks, so that there is some causal relation between the injury and the performance of some service of the employment. An accident arises out of and in the course of the employment when it occurs while the employee is engaged in some activity or duty which he is authorized to undertake and which is calculated to further, directly or indirectly, the employer's business." (Citations omitted.)

Clark v. Burton Lines, 272 N.C. 433, 437, 158 S.E.2d 569, 571-72 (1968). As the last quoted authority suggests, the two tests, although distinct, are interrelated and cannot be applied entirely independently. Rather, they are to be applied together to determine the issue of whether an accident is sufficiently work-related to come under the Act. Since the terms of the Act should be liberally construed in favor of compensation, deficiencies in one factor are sometimes allowed to be made up by strength in the other. Watkins v. City of Wilmington, 290 N.C. 276, 225 S.E.2d 577 (1976); Lee v. Henderson & Assocs., 284 N.C. 126, 200 S.E.2d 32 (1973); Kellams v. Metal Products, 248 N.C. 199, 102 S.E.2d 841 (1958); Hardy v. Small, 246 N.C. 581, 99 S.E.2d 862 (1957).

Professor Larson, in his treatise on Workers' Compensation Law, addresses the general situation before us and is quoted by both the majority and the dissent in the Court of Appeals in support of their respective positions. In order to place these quotations in context and to get a better understanding of the position Larson posits, we quote the treatise more fully:

It has already been observed that the modern tendency is to bring within the course of employment services outside regular duties performed in good faith to advance the employer's interests, even if this involves doing an unrelated job falling within the province of a co-employee. This, of course, assumes that no prohibition is thereby infringed. But if the unrelated job is positively forbidden, all connection with the course of the claimant's own employment disappears, for he has stepped outside the boundaries defining, not his method of working, but the ultimate work for which he is employed. Decisions on this topic have consistently denied compensation on these facts when the extraneous job was in no sense auxiliary to claimant's own task.

* * *

* * *

It frequently happens that an employee will have his work stopped by some clogging, lack of oil, or disrepair of his machine. Quite commonly, also, there will be a company rule forbidding the operator to attempt to deal with the situation, and requiring him to wait until the specialists--whether oilers, electricians, or other repairmen--arrive on the scene. Sometimes the operator decides he can make the repair without the delay involved in calling the experts, and sometimes he gets hurt because he underestimated the expertness required or overestimated his own versatility. Now, the question is: has he departed from the course of his employment? He has attempted another person's job in violation of instructions. Yet the fact remains that he is attempting to get his own work done, although in forbidden fashion. Cases presenting these facts have gone both ways, depending on whether attention was focused on the fact that the job belonged to another or the fact that the action was a method of advancing the employer's work.

* * *

* * *

As a matter of compensation theory, it is quite permissible to treat the incidental invasion of another employee's province as merely a forbidden route on the main journey to the ultimate objective, the performance of claimant's work. Realistically, in some circumstances it is quite unfair to the claimant to penalize him for his well-meant short-cut, since in the everyday operation of a factory it is not uncommon and is probably often to the interest of the employer for employees to take direct action rather than "going through channels" when confronted with some minor adjustment which technically they are not permitted to undertake. On the other hand, it is equally true that risk of industrial accident may be increased when amateur electricians and repairmen take upon themselves dangerous jobs for which they have no qualifications. Most of the cases, however, seem to be of the former sort.

1A A. Larson, The Law of Workmen's Compensation § 31.14(a) & (b) (1979).

The above quotation from Larson, while instructive is not dispositive of the question before us. It speaks in terms of unrelated jobs. The question of whether deceased's operation was or was not related to the job for which he was hired is at the heart of this appeal. Moreover, the statement about forbidden activities is not fully in accord with our case law. Our decision in this case must be guided by the decisions of this Court construing our own Workers' Compensation Act.

Several opinions of this Court have dealt with situations similar to the facts of instant case. While the older cases often viewed acts outside the employee's job description as being outside the scope of the employment, the more recent cases have not viewed minor deviations from the confines of a narrow job description as an absolute bar to the recovery of benefits, even when such acts were contrary to stated rules or to specific instructions of the employer where such acts were reasonably related to the accomplishment of the task for which the employee was hired. We examine these cases, five of which were cited and discussed in the Court of Appeals' opinion in instant case.

In Teague v. Atlantic Co., 213 N.C. 546, 196 S.E. 875 (1938), an employee was killed attempting to ride a conveyor belt intended to convey empty crates from the basement of the employer's plant to the first floor. Stairs were provided for this purpose and generally used by the employees. Deceased employee had been instructed by his foreman not to ride the conveyor. In a Per Curiam opinion, citing no authority, the Court held that deceased had disobeyed his orders and exceeded the scope of his employment by attempting a hazardous feat for the thrill of it or for his own convenience and affirmed the Industrial Commission's denial of death benefits.

That same year the Court affirmed the Industrial Commission's denial of death benefits to a painter who drowned in the Catawba River. Morrow v. Highway Commission, 214 N.C. 835, 199 S.E. 265 (1938). The deceased had dropped his paintbrush from a bridge he was painting. His foreman was present and ordered deceased not to go into the water to retrieve the brush. Deceased jumped in the river and was drowned. In a Per Curiam opinion of less than fifty words, and again citing no authority, the Court affirmed the Industrial Commission's conclusion that the accident did not arise out of the employment.

In Taylor v. Dixon, 251 N.C. 304, 111 S.E.2d 181 (1959), plaintiff was hired to cut down trees in a logging operation. On the day of the accident, he refused to cut trees and announced he was going to drive the tractor instead. Plaintiff was ordered by his...