Home/Supreme Court of North Carolina/Michaux v. Gate City Orange Crush Bottling Co.

Michaux v. Gate City Orange Crush Bottling Co.

172 S.E. 406, 205 N.C. 786, 1934 N.C. LEXIS 73
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedJanuary 24, 1934
StatusPublished
Cited by21 cases

This text of 172 S.E. 406 (Michaux v. Gate City Orange Crush Bottling Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Michaux v. Gate City Orange Crush Bottling Co., 172 S.E. 406, 205 N.C. 786, 1934 N.C. LEXIS 73 (N.C. 1934).

Opinion

BhogdeN, J.

The claimant was employed as a truck helper by the driver thereof, with the consent and approval of the employer, Gate *788 City Orange Crush Bottling Company. Moreover, bis services were necessary to the proper and efficient distribution of the products of the employer. He was injured in attempting to climb upon the truck to which he had been assigned in the prosecution of the business of the owner. Hayes v. Creamery, 195 N. C., 313, 141 S. E., 340.

Assuming that it was a negligent act for this boy to attempt to mount a moving truck, nevertheless “it is generally conceded by all courts that the various compensation acts were intended to eliminate the fault of the workman as a basis for denying recovery.” Chambers v. Oil Co., 199 N. C., 28, 153 S. E., 594. The fact that previous to his injury he had been playing or scuffling or sparring with another boy does not preclude recovery upon the facts disclosed by the record. Such acts bore no relation to his fall from the truck and the consequent death.

There was competent evidence to support the findings of fact made by the Industrial Commission and the judgment is

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Nottingham v. Thumpers Bar and Grill
North Carolina Industrial Commission, 2007
Cauble v. Soft-Play, Inc.
477 S.E.2d 678 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1996)
Lemmerman v. A. T. Williams Oil Co.
350 S.E.2d 83 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1986)
Chandler v. Nello L. Teer Co.
281 S.E.2d 718 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1981)
Lucas v. Li'l General Stores
212 S.E.2d 525 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1975)
Hartley v. North Carolina Prison Department
128 S.E.2d 598 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1962)
Brewer v. POWERS TRUCKING COMPANY
123 S.E.2d 608 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1962)
Howell v. Standard Ice & Fuel Co.
40 S.E.2d 197 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1946)
Nolde Bros. v. Chalkley
35 S.E.2d 827 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1945)
MacOn Dairies Inc. v. Duhart
24 S.E.2d 732 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1943)
Archie v. . Lumber Co.
23 S.E.2d 834 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1943)
Archie v. Greene Brothers Lumber Co.
222 N.C. 477 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1943)
Traders & General Ins. Co. v. May
168 S.W.2d 267 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1943)
Beach v. . McLean
14 S.E.2d 515 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1941)
Williams v. American Employers' Ins.
107 F.2d 953 (D.C. Circuit, 1939)
Hockmuth v. Perkins
191 S.E. 156 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1937)
Rowe v. . Rowe-Coward Co.
181 S.E. 254 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1935)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
172 S.E. 406, 205 N.C. 786, 1934 N.C. LEXIS 73, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/michaux-v-gate-city-orange-crush-bottling-co-nc-1934.