Plyler v. Charlotte Country Club

199 S.E. 622, 214 N.C. 453, 1938 N.C. LEXIS 374

• Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
• Decided: November 23, 1938
• Status: Published

Opinion

BaeNHILL, J.

To sustain an award it must appear that there is some competent evidence tending to show that the injured employee received an injury arising out of and in the course of employment. It must not only appear by competent evidence that the injury was received in the course of the employment, but also that it arose out of the employment as well. Hearsay evidence is not competent to establish either fact. Brown v. Ice Co., 203 N. C., 97, 164 S. E., 631.

The evidence in this case indicates that the deceased was not injured while caddying on his first assignment on the day he was injured. No one saw him go out on his second assignment and the only evidence that he did so is the testimony that he was seen approaching the caddy house with a golf bag about 8 o’clock p.m. It does not appear just how long a time elapsed between the two assignments, or whether he was injured while waiting for the second assignment, or during the course thereof. "Whether he was injured while pranking and playing with other caddies during the time he was waiting for his second assignment, or whether he was injured while so engaged upon the golf course, or whether the injury was received while he was about his master’s business is, upon the evidence in this cause, a mere matter of conjecture or speculation. To determine this fact one has to guess and surmise. While the evidence raises a suspicion and is sufficient to entitle one to guess that the deceased received an injury arising out of and in the course of his employment, there is no competent evidence to sustain such a finding, and no legal evidence of the material facts at issue. This is perhaps true even if we take in consideration the declarations of the deceased, who merely testified that he was injured while caddying. Such evidence will not support an award. Denny v. Snow, 199 N. C., 773, 155 S. E., 874.

Tbe factual situation distinguishes this case from Morgan v. Cloth Mills, 207 N. C., 317, 177 S. E., 165. Brown v. Ice Co., supra, is in point.

. That hearsay evidence is not admissible and has no probative force in the proof of an essential fact at issue is so well established that we need not discuss the same or cite authorities in support thereof.

The judgment below is

Affirmed.