Mayo v. City of Washington
Court of Appeals of North Carolina
1Opinion of the Court
MARTIN (Robert M.), Judge.
Defendant first contends that the evidence in the record does not support the finding by the Commission that the injury for which the award was given resulted from an accident arising out of and in the course of the plaintiffs employment. The Workers’ Compensation Act does not provide compensation for injury, but only for injury by accident. Hargus v. Foods, Inc., 271 N.C. 369, 156 S.E. 2d 737 (1967). The defendant concedes in its brief that the evidence is sufficient to support a finding that the plaintiff injured his knee on 29 November 1977 by accident arising out…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Click v. Pilot Freight Carriers, Inc.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1980
- Anderson v. LINCOLN CONSTRUCTION COMPANYSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1965
- Hollman v. City of Raleigh, Public Utilities DepartmentSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1968
- Keller v. ELECTRIC WIRING COMPANYSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1963
- Gamble v. Borden, Inc.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1980
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by29 opinions
- Heatherly v. Montgomery Components, Inc.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1984
- Cauble v. MacKe Co.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1986
- Forrest v. Pitt County Board of EducationCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1990
- Watkins v. City of AshevilleCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1990
- English v. J. P. Stevens & Co.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1990
24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.