Riddick v. Works
| Citation | 227 N.C. 647,43 S.E.2d 850 |
| Decision Date | 17 September 1947 |
| Docket Number | No. 22.,22. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | RIDDICK. v. RICHMOND CEDAR WORKS. |
Appeal from Superior Court, Gates County; J. Paul Frizzelle, Judge.
Proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Isaac Riddick, employee, opposed by Richmond Cedar Works, employer, for personal injuries. From judgment affirming award of the Industrial Commission, defendant appeals.
Judgment affirmed.
Proceeding under Workmen's Compensation Act, G.S. § 97-1 et seq, to determine liability of defendant, employer and self-insurer, to plaintiff, injured employee.
After making the jurisdictional determinations the Industrial Commission found that claimant, a Negro boy 18 years of age, was employed by the defendant at its lumber plant in Gates County. He was not employed to do any sawing, and in fact had been warned to stay away from the saws. Nevertheless, on 2 May, 1945, "he was directed to leave his regular job and to perform some work in the vicinity of one of the saws, " and while waiting around the place in the absence of the regular sawyer, he started to assist another employee in cutting off a board and suffered an injury when his hand came in contact with the saw. Two men were usually required to operate the saw, and claimant undertook to help in the absence of the regular operator.
There was an award by the Industrial Commission which was affirmed on appeal to the Superior Court. From this latter ruling, the defendant appeals, assigning errors.
Walter G. Edwards, of Hertford, for plaintiff, appellee.
John H. Hall, of Elizabeth City, for defendant, appellant.
The correctness of the award is challenged on the ground that claimant had departed from the work he was employed to do at the time of his injury. Davis v. Veneer Corp, 200 N.C. 263, 156 S.E. 859; Parrish v. Armour, 200 N.C. 654, 158 S.E. 188. Even so, he was instructed on the day of the accident to leave his regular job and to do some work in the vicinity of one of the saws. "Whatsoever thy hand findeth do do, " was apparently within the purview of this instruction. In compliance, the claimant, in the absence of the regular sawyer, undertook to assist another employee in cutting off a board. The fact that he was not actually engaged in the performance of his duties as lumber-piler at the time of the injury would not perforce defeat his claim for compensation. Brown v. Aluminum Co, 224 N.C. 766, 32 S.E.2d 320. He was doing "some work" in the vicinity of one of the saws pursuant to instructions from his superior. This suffices...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lewter v. Abercrombie Enterprises
...if so, the findings of fact are conclusive on us. Vause v. Vause Farm Equipment Co., 233 N.C. 88, 63 S.E.2d 173; Riddick v. Richmond Cedar Works, 227 N.C. 647, 43 S.E.2d 850; Hildebrand v. McDowell Furniture Co., 212 N.C. 100, 193 S.E. If a finding of fact is a mixed question of fact and la......
-
Gregory v. W.A. Brown & Sons, 447A08.
...to reweigh the evidence because different conclusions might have been reached." (citations omitted)); Riddick v. Richmond Cedar Works, 227 N.C. 647, 648, 43 S.E.2d 850, 851 (1947) ("Where the record is such as to permit either finding [a compensable or non-compensable injury], the determina......
-
Osteen v. Greenville County School Dist.
...a tractor, entitled to death benefits when he was killed in attempting to move a tractor blocking his path); Riddick v. Richmond Cedar Works, 227 N.C. 647, 43 S.E.2d 850 (1947) (lumber stacker warned to stay away from saws in employer's lumber plant compensated for injuries sustained when h......
-
Harless v. Flynn
... ... Great Falls Manufacturing Co., 200 N.C. 676, 158 S.E. 246, voluntarily leaves his post to assist another employee, Riddick v. Richmond Cedar Works, 227 N.C. 647, 43 S.E.2d 850 ... Thus, it is the conjunction of all three of these factors--time, place and ... ...