Legal Opinion
Harding v. THOMAS AND HOWARD COMPANY
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Decided February 28, 1962No. 29PublishedCited by 117 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtHiggins, J.
The North Carolina Workmen’s Compensation Act does not provide compensation for injury, but only for injury by accident. G.S. 97-2(6). The term “accident” as used in the Compensation Act has been defined by this Court 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. Smith v. Creamery Co., 217 N.C. 468, 8 S.E. 2d 231; Love v. Lumberton, 215 N.C. 28, 1 S.E. 2d 121; Slade v. Hosiery Mills, 209 N.C. 823, 184 S.E. 844; Edwards v. Publishing Co., 227 N.C. 184, 41 S.E. 2d 592.
In Moore v. Sales Co., 214…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Hensley v. Farmers Federation Co-OperativeSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1957
- Smith v. Cabarrus Creamery Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1940
- Edwards v. . Publishing Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1947
- Slade v. Willis Hosiery MillsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1936
- Moore v. Engineering & Sales Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1938
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by117 opinions
- Booker v. Duke Medical CenterSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1979
- Woodson v. RowlandSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1991
- Adams v. Burlington Industries, Inc.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1983
- Davis v. Raleigh Rental CenterCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1982
- Gunter v. Dayco Corp.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1986
112 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.