Riddick v. Richmond Cedar Works

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 to 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…