Hunter v. Hunter Auto Co.

169 S.E. 648, 204 N.C. 723, 1933 N.C. LEXIS 250

• Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
• Decided: June 14, 1933
• Status: Published

Opinion

BbogdeN, J.

Was the claimant an employee of the defendant within the contemplation of the Compensation Act, or was he exclusively an executive ?

The boundary line between employee and executive in compensation cases was sketched, by implication at least, in the case of Hodges v. Mortgage Co., 201 N. C., 701. The Court said: “The majority of the decided cases adhere to what may be called the dual capacity doctrine; that is to say, that executive officers of a corporation will not be denied compensation merely because they are executive officers if, as a matter of fact, at the time of the injury they are engaged in performing manual labor or the ordinary duties of a workman. Hence, one of the fundamental tests of the right to compensation is not the title of the injured person, but the nature and quality of the act he is performing at the time of the injury.” Applying the test so approved to the facts, it is manifest that the claimant was not discharging an exclusively executive function at the time of the injury. The collection of accounts is well within the ordinary and usual duties of an employee of a motor company of the type described in the evidence in this cause. Indeed, the testimony tends to show that the plaintiff was not an executive at all for the reason that he was subject to the supervision and control of Mr. Hoke, who was apparently both the brain and tongue of the company in so far as the policies of the business were concerned.

There is ample evidence to support the findings of the Industrial Commission and the trial judge ruled correctly in upholding the award.

Affirmed.