Puett v. Bahnson Co.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Puett v. Bahnson Co.

58 S.E.2d 633, 231 N.C. 711, 1950 N.C. LEXIS 365

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedApril 12, 1950

Docket307

StatusPublished

Cited by21 cases

This text of 58 S.E.2d 633 (Puett v. Bahnson 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

Puett v. Bahnson Co., 58 S.E.2d 633, 231 N.C. 711, 1950 N.C. LEXIS 365 (N.C. 1950).

Pincite

Opinion

Stacy, C. J.

Tbe question for decision is whether an injury sustained in an automobile accident by employees while on their way to or from tbeir work arises out of and in tbe course of tbe employment, when, under tbe terms of tbe employment, allowances are made by tbe employer to cover tbe cost of such transportation. No exact prototype of tbis question is to be found in any of our previous decisions. It seems to be one of first impression. Rewis v. Ins. Co., 226 N.C. 325, 38 S.E. 2d 97.

Tbe claimants cite Smith v. Gastonia, 216 N.C. 517, 5 S.E. 2d 540, as tending to support tbeir position. The defendants say the case of Hunt v. State, 201 N.C. 707, 161 S.E. 203, is more nearly in point. In tbe Smith Case tbe employer furnished tbe means of transportation, tbe car itself, and tbe claimant was on duty at tbe time of tbe injury. In the *713 Hunt Case tbe claimant furnished bis own means of transportation, albeit bis pay started from tbe time be left borne. Even so, tbe claimant bad not reached tbe place where be could do any work for tbe employer when the injury occurred. See Mion v. Marble & Tile Co., 217 N.C. 743, 9 S.E. 2d 501; Hildebrand v. Furniture Co., 212 N.C. 100, 193 S.E. 294; Dependents of Phifer v. Dairy, 200 N.C. 65, 156 S.E. 147.

Tbe authorities elsewhere are inharmonious, 58 Am. Jur. 726, with tbe majority favoring compensation. Tbe Industrial Commission has consistently followed tbe majority view, and we are inclined to approve, where, as here, tbe cost of transporting tbe employees to and from their work is made an incident to tbe contract of employment. Archie v. Lumber Co., 222 N.C. 477, 23 S.E. 2d 834; Voehl v. Indemnity Ins. Co., 288 U.S. 162, 77 L. Ed. 676, 87 A.L.R. 245, and Annotation, 250. See, also, Geltman v. Reliable Linen & Supply Co., 128 N.J.L. 443, 139 A.L.R. 1465.

Affirmed.

Barnhill and Ervin, JJ., took no part in tbe consideration or decision of this case.

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

Stacy, C. J.

Tbe question for decision is whether an injury sustained in an automobile accident by employees while on their way to or from tbeir work arises out of and in tbe course of tbe employment, when, under tbe terms of tbe employment, allowances are made by tbe employer to cover tbe cost of such transportation. No exact prototype of tbis question is to be found in any of our previous decisions. It seems to be one of first impression. Rewis v. Ins. Co., 226 N.C. 325, 38 S.E. 2d 97.

Tbe claimants cite Smith v. Gastonia, 216 N.C. 517, 5 S.E. 2d 540, as tending to support tbeir position. The defendants say the case of Hunt v. State, 201 N.C. 707, 161 S.E. 203, is more nearly in point. In tbe Smith Case tbe employer furnished tbe means of transportation, tbe car itself, and tbe claimant was on duty at tbe time of tbe injury. In the *713 Hunt Case tbe claimant furnished bis own means of transportation, albeit bis pay started from tbe time be left borne. Even so, tbe claimant bad not reached tbe place where be could do any work for tbe employer when the injury occurred. See Mion v. Marble & Tile Co., 217 N.C. 743, 9 S.E. 2d 501; Hildebrand v. Furniture Co., 212 N.C. 100, 193 S.E. 294; Dependents of Phifer v. Dairy, 200 N.C. 65, 156 S.E. 147.

Tbe authorities elsewhere are inharmonious, 58 Am. Jur. 726, with tbe majority favoring compensation. Tbe Industrial Commission has consistently followed tbe majority view, and we are inclined to approve, where, as here, tbe cost of transporting tbe employees to and from their work is made an incident to tbe contract of employment. Archie v. Lumber Co., 222 N.C. 477, 23 S.E. 2d 834; Voehl v. Indemnity Ins. Co., 288 U.S. 162, 77 L. Ed. 676, 87 A.L.R. 245, and Annotation, 250. See, also, Geltman v. Reliable Linen & Supply Co., 128 N.J.L. 443, 139 A.L.R. 1465.

Affirmed.

Barnhill and Ervin, JJ., took no part in tbe consideration or decision of this case.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

58 S.E.2d 633, 231 N.C. 711, 1950 N.C. LEXIS 365, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/puett-v-bahnson-co-nc-1950.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack