Legal Opinion

Reams v. Burlington Industries

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided June 19, 1979No. 7810IC829PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MITCHELL, Judge.

In order to be compensable under the Workers’ Compensation Act, G.S. 97-1 et seq., an injury must have resulted from an accident. The mere fact of injury does not of itself prove that an accident occurred. Jackson v. Highway Commission, 272 N.C. 697, 158 S.E. 2d 865 (1968); Lawrence v. Mill, 265 N.C. 329, 144 S.E. 2d 3 (1965). The terms “injury” and “accident,” are not, therefore, synonymous as employed in the Act. Instead, an accident as referred to in the Act is “(1) an unlooked for and untoward event which is not expected or designed by the injured employee; (2) a result…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Harding v. THOMAS AND HOWARD COMPANYSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1962
  2. Jackson Ex Rel. Jackson v. North Carolina State Highway CommissionSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1968
  3. Russell v. Pharr Yarns, Inc.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1973
  4. Lawrence v. Hatch MillSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1965
  5. Beamon v. Stop and Shop GroceryCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1975

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Adams v. Burlington Industries, Inc.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1983
  2. Jackson v. Fayetteville Area System of TransportationCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1987
  3. Trudell v. Seven Lakes Heating & Air Conditioning Co.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1981
  4. Dyer v. MacK Foster Poultry & Livestock, Inc.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1981
  5. Aldridge v. N.C. Dept. of CorrectionNorth Carolina Industrial Commission · 2000

5 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