Yates v. Hajoca Corp., 681C108

Decision Date10 July 1968
Docket NumberNo. 681C108,681C108
CourtNorth Carolina Court of Appeals
PartiesRuth C. YATES, Next Friend of Thomas Henry Yates, Jr. v. HAJOCA CORPORATION and Maryland Casualty Company.

Mason, Williamson & Etheridge, by Kennieth S. Etheridge, Laurinburg, for claimant-appellee.

Henry & Henry, by Everett L. Henry, Lumberton, for defendants-appellants.

MALLARD, Chief Justice.

The appellants contend that the Hearing Commissioner and the full Commission of the North Carolina Industrial Commission committed error in finding as a fact and concluding that Thomas Henry Yates, Jr., was injured by accident arising out of and in the course and scope of his employment.

Counsel for the parties agreed that the provisions of Rule 19(d)(2) of the Rules of Practice in the Court of Appeals of North Carolina shall apply to this appeal. In accordance with this rule, they filed the stenographic transcript. They did not file an appendix to their briefs setting forth in succinct language with respect to those witnesses whose testimony is deemed to be pertinent on appeal, what they say the testimony of such witness tends to establish with citation to the page of the stenographic transcript in support thereof. However, counsel for each party does set out what he contends the facts are and does at times cite pages of the record in the following different ways: 'Durham, R p 4'; 'R p 4'; 'R p 18--Fur'; etc. It would be clearer if counsel, when referring to the Record on appeal, would use 'R p _ _' (giving the correct page) and when referring to the Stenographic transcript would use 'T p _ _' (giving the correct page). To further confuse the record in this case, there are 20 pages numbered from 1 to 20 of the record on appeal, 69 pages numbered from 1 to 69 of one part of the stenographic transcript, 12 pages numbered from 1 to 12 of another part of the transcript, 24 pages numbered from 1 to 24 of another part of the transcript, plus certain exhibits attached to the stenographic transcript.

Thomas Henry Yates, Jr., was employed by the defendant Hajoca Corporation as an outside salesman on 16 December 1965. He lived in Hamlet, North Carolina, and had his office in his home. He performed his duties as a salesman, which included soliciting orders from plumbing and heating contractors in the territory south and east of Charlotte, including Southern Pines, Rockingham, Hamlet, and over to Lancaster. The defendant employer furnished him with a 1965 Falcon station wagon and credit cards to buy gas and oil for use in his work, and he kept this vehicle at his home and office in Hamlet. He came to Charlotte from his office and home in Hamlet almost every Thursday to turn into the office of the defendant employer all orders received, moneys collected, and to discuss deliveries and procedure for billing the orders he received. On Thursday, 16 December 1965, Thomas Henry Yates, Jr., as was his custom, went to Charlotte on business for his employer, driving the automobile furnished him by the defendant employer. After attending to the usual business there at the employer's Charlotte office and after eating supper with a fellow employee, he left Charlotte about 9:00 p.m. to return to his office and home in Hamlet. It was a dark foggy night, and before 11:00 p.m., the employer's automobile operated by Thomas Henry...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • Inscoe v. DeRose Industries, Inc.
    • United States
    • North Carolina Court of Appeals
    • July 7, 1976
    ...the Judge of the Superior Court was bound by such finding, and we are likewise bound. " (Citations omitted.) In Yates v. Hajoca Corp., 1 N.C.App. 553, 162 S.E.2d 119 (1968), claimant was employed by defendant as an outside salesman and had his office in his home in Hamlet. Every Thursday he......
  • Hunt v. TENDER LOVING CARE HOME CARE AGENCY, COA01-1571.
    • United States
    • North Carolina Court of Appeals
    • October 1, 2002
    ...If travel is contemplated as part of the employment, an injury from an accident during travel is compensable. Yates v. Hajoca Corp., 1 N.C.App. 553, 556, 162 S.E.2d 119, 120 (1968); Ross v. Young Supply Co., 71 N.C.App. 532, 537, 322 S.E.2d 648, 652 (1984). Recognizing that traveling to and......
  • Gallimore v. Marilyn's Shoes
    • United States
    • North Carolina Court of Appeals
    • September 15, 1976
    ...the working hours as well as such reasonable time as is required to pass to and from the employer's premises. Yates v. Hajoca Corp., 1 N.C.App. 553, 162 S.E.2d 119 (1968). 'With respect to place, the course of employment includes the premises of the employer.' Harless v. Flynn, supra. Final......
  • Ross v. Young Supply Co., 8310IC1251
    • United States
    • North Carolina Court of Appeals
    • December 4, 1984
    ...to this general rule. If travel is contemplated as a part of the work, accident in travel is compensable. Yates v. Hajoca Corporation, 1 N.C.App. 553, 162 S.E.2d 119 (1968). This exception is often referred to as the "traveling salesman's exception" to the "going and coming rule." Travel in......
  • 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