Taylor v. Hunt

Decision Date12 December 1956
Docket NumberNo. 452,452
Citation245 N.C. 212,95 S.E.2d 589
CourtNorth Carolina Supreme Court
PartiesF. L. TAYLOR v. E. M. HUNT.

David H. Armstrong, Troy, for appellant.

W. D. Sabiston, Jr., Carthage, for appellee.

DENNY, Justice.

The appellant states in his brief that the action was instituted with the knowledge, consent and approval of the insurance carrier. We construe this statement to be tantamount to an admission that the action was not instituted by the carrier in the name of the injured employee, as authorized by G.S. § 97-10. We think this view is further confirmed by the appellant in his brief in which he contends that the right of the employer or carrier to bring the action within six months from the date of such injury or death, may be waived, citing Foster v. Congress Square Hotel Co., 128 Me. 50, 145 A. 400, 67 A.L.R. 239.

We express no opinion as to whether the exclusive right given to an employer or his carrier to bring suit within six months from the date of the injury or death may or may not be waived in favor of the injured employee, since waiver of such right is not pleaded by the plaintiff. See Wright v. Mercury Insurance Co., 244 N.C. 361, 93 S.E.2d 438.

Under the original provisions of our Workmen's Compensation Act, Section 11, Chapter 120, of the Public Laws of 1929, an employee or his personal representative had to elect whether he would accept the benefits available to him under the Workmen's Compensation Act, or would proceed in a suit at common law against a third party to recover damages for such injury. And where the injured employee or his personal representative elected to accept the benefits available under the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act, such acceptance was a complete bar to his right to proceed with the alternate remedy.

The Act, however, has always provided that where an employer has assumed liability for an award for compensation, he shall be subrogated to such rights as the injured employee or his personal representative had against any other party for such injury or death. Likewise, the Act provided that where an insurance carrier has paid an award for which the employer was liable, the insurance carrier shall be subrogated to all the rights of the employer, and that such subrogated rights may be enforced against a third party in the name of the employer, or the insurance carrier, as the case may be, or in the name of the injured employee or his personal representative. Brown v. Southern R. Co., 202 N.C. 256, 162 S.E. 613; McCarley v. Council, 205 N.C. 370, 171 S.E. 323.

In 1933 the General Assembly amended the Workmen's Compensation Act, eliminating the requirement for an election of remedies, and authorizing the employee or his personal representative to bring an action against a third party if the employer had not instituted such action within six months of the date of such injury or death. Chapter 449, Public Laws of 1933. The Act was amended again by Chapter 622, Session Laws of 1943, which amendment provided "that after the Industrial Commission shall have issued an award, or the employer or his...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Gibbs v. Carolina Power & Light Co.
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • October 20, 1965
    ...the action was being prosecuted by the subrogated employer or its insurer in the name of the employee, as was held in Taylor v. Hunt, 245 N.C. 212, 95 S.E.2d 589 (1956), to be necessary.' The Taylor case holds that if, at the time of the institution of an action against a negligent third pa......
  • Troy Lumber Co. v. Hunt
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • January 14, 1960
    ...Taylor had accepted compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, the Casualty Company was made a party plaintiff. Taylor v. Hunt, 245 N.C. 212, 95 S.E.2d 589. Six issues were presented to the jury to answer. The first issue was as to whether Taylor was injured and damaged by the negli......
  • Ray v. French Broad Elec. Membership Corp.
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • April 27, 1960
    ...discloses that the action was instituted in the name of such injured employee by either the employer or his carrier.' Taylor v. Hunt, 245 N.C. 212, 95 S.E.2d 589, 591. Woody's counterclaim filed on 25 November 1958, within six months from the date of his injury, does not show it was institu......
  • North Carolina Bd. of Transp. v. Rand
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • March 5, 1980
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT