Legal Opinion

Southards v. Byrd Motor Lines, Inc.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided June 23, 1971No. 7118IC243PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

BROCK, Judge.

Defendants assign as error that the conclusions of law are not supported by the findings of fact. Specific findings of fact by the Industrial Commission, with respect to the crucial facts upon which the question of plaintiff’s right to compensation depends, are required. Morgan v. Furniture Industries, Inc., 2 N.C. App. 126, 162 S.E. 2d 619.

“Accident” as used in our statute (G.S. 97-2(18)) involves the interruption of the work routine and the introduction of unusual conditions likely to result in unpredicted consequences. A hernia suffered by an employee does not arise by…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Morgan v. Thomasville Furniture Industries, Inc.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1968
  2. Rhinehart v. Roberts Super Market, Inc.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1967
  3. Gray v. Durham Transfer and Storage, Inc.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1970

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Poe v. Acme BuildersCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1984
  2. Bowles v. CTS of Asheville, Inc.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1985
  3. Hill v. Federal Express Corp.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 2014
  4. Wright v. Maxim HealthcareNorth Carolina Industrial Commission · 1998

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API