Pickrell v. Motor Convoy, Inc., 562PA86

• Decision Date: 02 June 1988
• Docket Number: No. 562PA86,562PA86
• Parties: Carnation S. PICKRELL, Widow of Clyde R. Pickrell, Deceased, Employee, Plaintiff, v. MOTOR CONVOY, INC., Employer, Transport Insurance Company, Carrier, Defendants.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

Page 582

368 S.E.2d 582

322 N.C. 363

Carnation S. PICKRELL, Widow of Clyde R. Pickrell, Deceased Employee, Plaintiff, v. MOTOR CONVOY, INC., Employer, Transport Insurance Company Carrier, Defendants.

No. 562PA86.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 2, 1988.

Smith, Patterson, Follin, Curtis, James & Harkavy by J. David James, Henry N. Patterson, Jr. and Jonathan R. Harkavy, Raleigh, for plaintiff-appellant.

Bell, Davis & Pitt, P.A. by Walter W. Pitt, Jr., and Joseph T. Carruthers, Winston-Salem, for defendants-appellees.

EXUM, Chief Justice.

This is a workers' compensation case in which the question presented is whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that a presumption of compensability does not apply when an employee dies within the course and scope of employment and the cause of death is unknown. We hold the Court of Appeals erred and remand this case to the Court of Appeals for remand to the Industrial Commission for further proceedings consistent with our decision.

I.

The material facts shown by the evidence and found by the Commission are undisputed.

Defendant's business, located in Walkertown, involves unloading cars and vans from railroad cars and then reloading them onto tractor-trailer trucks for transportation to their ultimate destinations. Decedent Clyde Pickrell was employed by defendant as a tractor-trailer driver. His duties entailed loading cars and vans onto his tractor-trailer for transport. Before loading the new vehicles, decedent was required to check them carefully for any damage they might have sustained during their railroad transport. When checking for possible damage to the roof of a new van, decedent had to stand on the van's rear bumper and hold onto the door handles or top railing. Other drivers observed decedent practice this method of inspection.

At approximately 5:45 p.m. on 17 January 1983 decedent's fellow drivers found him lying dead behind a van which he had been assigned to load and transport. He lay on his back with his left leg extended under the van's rear bumper and his right leg bent toward the left. A small amount of blood came from his left nostril. Blood was also discovered in front of his left ear. The van's bumper, which was rounded and about eighteen inches above the ground, showed a scuff mark resembling a shoe print. An outside temperature of eighteen degrees under windy conditions made outside work uncomfortable. Decedent had reported to work at approximately 2:30 p.m. that day and was dispatched on a trip to Lowell and Charlotte. He returned from this trip at around 4 p.m. and spoke with his terminal manager. It was the last time he was seen alive. No evidence was adduced before the Commission with respect to the medical reasons for his death.

The Deputy Commissioner denied the claim brought by decedent's widow for death benefits. While the Deputy Commissioner found that the decedent sustained an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment, she denied plaintiff's claim on the grounds that "his death was not proven to be the proximate result of the accident." ¹ On appeal the Full Industrial Commission, with Commissioner Clay dissenting, concluded that the Deputy Commissioner's "ultimate decision" was correct; however, it found the evidence insufficient to raise the inference that plaintiff suffered an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the Commission's decision to deny plaintiff's claim; however, it concluded the Commission erred in deciding the evidence was insufficient to raise an inference of accident arising out of decedent's employment. The court held that because plaintiff offered no evidence of the medical reason for decedent's death she "failed to sustain her burden of proving that decedent died as a proximate result of an injury by accident arising out of his employment." 82 N.C.App. at 243, 346 S.E.2d at 167-68. The court concluded that, under these circumstances, plaintiff could not rely on a presumption that decedent's death was compensable, but was required to prove that he died as a result of a work-related accident. Id.

II.

Plaintiff contends, and we agree, that the Court of Appeals erred in holding that she could not rely on a presumption of compensability when she introduced evidence that decedent died while acting within the course and scope of his employment and no evidence was adduced indicating that decedent died other than by a compensable cause.

In order for a claimant to recover workers' compensation benefits for death, he must prove that death resulted from an injury (1) by accident; (2) arising out of his employment; and (3) in the course of the employment. N.C.G.S. § 97-2(6), (10) (1985). The claimant has the burden of proving each of these elements. Henry v. Leather Co., 231 N.C. 477, 479, 57 S.E.2d 760, 761 (1950). The question this case presents is what mode of proof claimant may use to meet her burden where the evidence shows decedent died in the course and scope of his employment, but there is no evidence as to whether the cause of death was work-related, i.e., from an injury by accident arising out of employment.

The general rule is that a claimant under such circumstances may rely upon a presumption that the death resulted proximately from a work-related injury:

When an employee is found dead under circumstances indicating that death took place within the time and space limits of the employment, in the absence of any evidence of what caused the death, most courts will indulge a presumption or inference that the death arose out of the employment.

1 Larson, The Law of Workmen's Compensation § 10.32 (1985). Stated another way the rule is that:

In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the presumption or inference will be indulged in that injury or death arose out of the employment where the employee is found injured at the place where his duty may have required him to be, or where the employee is found dead under circumstances indicating that death took place within the time and space limits of the employment.... Such presumptions are rebuttable and they disappear on the introduction of evidence to the contrary.

100 C.J.S. Workmen's Compensation § 513 (1958).

Previously we have allowed claimants to rely on presumptions in meeting their burden of proof in workers' compensation cases where the evidence indicated the death occurred in the course and scope of the decedent's employment and the only question was whether it was work-related. In McGill v. Town of Lumberton, 215 N.C. 752, 3 S.E.2d 324 (1939), a town's police chief was found shot to death by his own gun in a small room with its door and windows locked. We held that plaintiff was entitled to a presumption that the police chief's death was accidental, rather than suicidal, and therefore compensable under the workers' compensation statute. In Harris v. Henry's Auto Parts, Inc., 57 N.C.App. 90, 290 S.E.2d 716, disc. rev. denied, 306 N.C. 384, 294 S.E.2d 208 (1982), the decedent was a service station attendant who was found dead on the employer's premises while he was on duty. He had been shot, and no motive for the killing was introduced. The Court of Appeals, relying on McGill, held that claimant was entitled to rely on a presumption that death arose out of decedent's employment.

It is important to note that the presumption enabled the claimants in McGill and Harris, respectively, to prove different elements of their compensation claims. Common to both cases was that death occurred during the course and scope of employment. In McGill the Court held that the presumption applied to the "accident" element of the claim, and in Harris the Court of Appeals concluded it applied to the "arising out of" element. The McGill Court permitted the claimant to use the presumption to carry her burden of proving the death occurred by accident. In Harris, the Court of Appeals permitted the claimant to use the presumption to carry his burden of proving that death "arose out of" decedent's employment.

McGill and Harris, read together, support the proposition that the presumption is really one of compensability. It may be used to help a claimant carry his burden of proving that death was caused by accident, or that it arose out of the decedent's employment, or both. In McGill, we chose to address the question of compensability by determining whether death was accidental, bypassing any inquiry as to whether it "arose out of" decedent's employment. The Harris court analyzed the question of compensability by focusing on whether death "arose out of" decedent's employment, ignoring whether it was an accident. Both cases, in effect, merged the elements of "arising out of" and "accident," and permitted the claimant to meet her burden of proof by relying on a presumption that the event causing decedent's death was work-related. ²

In McGill, Harris, and the instant case, the decedent died while within the course and scope of his employment, and no evidence was introduced that death was due to a non-compensable cause. The critical question here, as in McGill and Harris, is whether death was work-related. In all three cases, those in the best position to speak to this question are the employee, whom death has silenced, and the employer. Under such circumstances, a presumption of compensability is theoretically and practically justified.

The theoretical justification is similar to that for unexplained falls and other neutral harms: The occurrence of the death within the course of employment at least indicates that employment brought deceased within range of the harm, and the cause of harm being unknown, is neutral and not personal. The practical justification lies in the realization that, when the death itself has removed the only possible witness who could prove causal connection, fairness to the dependents suggests some softening of the rule requiring claimant to provide affirmative proof...