Legal Opinion

Kennedy v. Martin Marietta Chemicals

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided October 5, 1977No. 7626IC975PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

ARNOLD, Judge.

Recovery under the Workmen’s Compensation Act is designed to compensate for those injuries resulting from accidents which arise out of and in the course of employment. The term “accident” has often been defined as “(1) an unlooked for and untoward event which is not expected or designed by the injured employee; (2) a result produced by a fortuitous cause.” Harding v. Thomas & Howard Co., 256 N.C. 427, 428, 124 S.E. 2d 109, 110-11 (1962). Injury by accident is an injury produced by a fortuitous cause. Brown v. Aluminum Co., 224 N.C. 766, 32 S.E. 2d 320 (1944).

Defendants assign…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Harding v. THOMAS AND HOWARD COMPANYSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1962
  2. Lockwood v. McCaskillSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1964
  3. Brown v. Carolina Aluminum Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1944
  4. Russell v. Pharr Yarns, Inc.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1973
  5. Willis v. Reidsville Drapery PlantCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1976

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Buck v. Procter & Gamble Manufacturing Co.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1981
  2. Cherry v. HarrellCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1987
  3. Walston v. Burlington IndustriesCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1980
  4. Johnson v. Piggly Wiggly of Pinetops, Inc.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 2003
  5. Poole v. Copland, Inc.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1997

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API