Beavers v. Lily Mill & Power Co.

169 S.E. 825, 205 N.C. 34, 1933 N.C. LEXIS 452

Opinion

Stacy, C. J.

The sole question presented by the appeal is whether plaintiff was injured by accident arising out of and in the course of her employment. We think not. Conrad v. Foundry Co., 198 N. C., 723, 153 S. E., 266.

It is true, the accident took place on the mill premises. But it could hardly be said to have arisen “out of and in the course of the employment,” both of which are necessary to justify an award under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. Hunt v. State, 201 N. C., 707, 161 S. E., 203; Harden v. Furniture Co., 199 N. C., 733, 155 S. E., 728. It was not the result of one of the risks incident to the employment. Cennell v. Daniels Co., 203 Mich., 73, 7 A. L. R., 1301. Tbe condition antecedent to compensation is tbe occurrence of an injury (1) by accident, (2) arising out of and (3) in tbe course of the employment. Conrad v. Foundry Co., supra; 28 R. C. L., 801.

In tbe light of tbe facts, wbicb are not in dispute, we are constrained to believe tbat plaintiff was not injured “by accident arising out of and in tbe course of tbe employment.” Cbap. 120, P. L., 1929, sec. 2(f).

Reversed.

ClaeksoN, J., dissenting.