Allen v. Inco, Inc.
North Carolina Industrial Commission
1Dissent
For the reasons discussed in Hunt v. Tender Loving Care Home CareAgency, ___ N.C. App. ___, 569 S.E.2d 675, review denied, ___ N.C. ___, 572 S.E.2d 784 (2002), and as discussed below, I respectfully dissent and would find that plaintiff's automobile accident did not arise out of or occur in the course and scope of his employment.
Traveling Salesman Exception is not Applicable
Despite the findings of the majority recited in Finding of Fact 2, there is no evidence that plaintiff was a "traveling mechanic." Plaintiff, on two occasions, expressed that his job title was "mechanic." [Tr. pp. 2, 15.]…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- McGill v. Town of LumbertonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1939
- Helms v. ReaSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1973
- Royster v. Culp, Inc.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1996
- Creel v. Town of DoverCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1997
- Lassiter v. Carolina Telephone & Telegraph Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1939
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.