Mckenzie v. City Of Gastonia, 521.
| Decision Date | 25 November 1942 |
| Docket Number | No. 521.,521. |
| Citation | 22 S.E.2d 712,222 N.C. 328 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | McKENZIE et al. v. CITY OF GASTONIA et al. |
Appeal from Superior Court, Gaston County; S. J. Ervin, Special Judge.
Proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act by J. F. McKenzie, father, Mrs. J. F. McKenzie, mother, and Stella McKenzie, minor sister of S. C. McKenzie, deceased employee, against the City of Gastonia, employer, and the Great American Indemnity Company, carrier, to recover compensation for the death of the deceased employee. The hearing commissioner made an award denying compensation, and on appeal the full commission affirmed the award. On appeal to the Superior Court it entered judgment affirming the action of the full commission, and the claimants appeal.
Affirmed.
This is a claim for compensation under the North Carolina Workmen's Compensation Act, ch. 120, Public Laws 1929, and amendments thereto, N.C. Code of 1939 (Michie), sections 8081(h) et seq.
The Hearing Commissioner made an award denying compensation, and upon appeal the Full Commission adopted the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the Hearing Commissioner and affirmed his award.
Upon appeal to it the Superior Court entered judgment affirming the action of the Full Commission, to which judgment the claimants reserved exception and appealed to the Supreme Court.
Basil L. Whitener, of Gastonia, for appellants.
Sanders & Mullen and Paul E. Monroe, all of Gastonia, for appellees.
The Commission concluded that the accident relied upon as a basis for compensation did not arise out of and in the course of the employment of the deceased employee, and since such conclusion is warranted by the facts found by the Commission, which facts are sustained by the evidence, it must stand. Lockey v. Cohen, Goldman & Co., 213 N. C. 356, 196 S.E. 342.
The evidence is to the effect that the deceased employee, S. C. McKenzie, had obtained a leave of absence of a day or two from his duties as a policeman of the City of Gastonia, and was returning in his own automobile to the place from which he was required to start his work, the City Hall, when a collision with a police car of the City of Gastonia, recklessly driven, occurred, in which collision the deceased employee received injuries from which he died.
Since the evidence supports the finding that the deceased employee was returning to his duties from a leave of absence therefrom, the conclusion that he did not sustain injury by accident arising...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bryan v. T.A. Loving Co. & Associates
...arguendo that deceased was vested with all the authority of a traffic officer, Davis v. Mecklenburg County, supra, and McKenzie v. Gastonia, 222 N.C. 328, 22 S.E.2d 712, in principle, directly in point. In the Davis case the employee was a rural policeman. He was within his county--the ambi......
-
Hardy v. Small
...W.H. Weatherly & Co., 203 N.C. 160, 165 S.E. 332; Lassiter v. Carolina Telephone Co., 215 N.C. 227, 1 S.E.2d 542; McKenzie v. City of Gastonia, 222 N.C. 328, 23 S.E.2d 712; Bryan v.T.A. Loving Co., 222 N.C. 724, 24 S.E.2d 751. Such an injury is compensable when it is established that the em......