Rhinehart v. Roberts Super Market, Inc.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Rhinehart v. Roberts Super Market, Inc.

157 S.E.2d 1, 271 N.C. 586, 1967 N.C. LEXIS 1247

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedOctober 11, 1967

Docket204

StatusPublished

Cited by29 cases

This text of 157 S.E.2d 1 (Rhinehart v. Roberts Super Market, Inc.) 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

Rhinehart v. Roberts Super Market, Inc., 157 S.E.2d 1, 271 N.C. 586, 1967 N.C. LEXIS 1247 (N.C. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

*588 Per Curiam.

Except in the case of certain occupational diseases, compensation may not be awarded under the Workmen’s Compensation Act unless there is proof of a disability due to an injury, which injury was the result of an accident arising out of and in- the course of the employment. G.S. 97-2(6). A finding by the Industrial Commission that the claimant sustained such an injury is conclusive upon an appeal to the courts if, but only if, the Commission had before it competent evidence sufficient to support such a finding. Lawrence v. Mill, 265 N.C. 329, 144 S.E. 2d 3.

The terms “injury” and “accident,” as used in the Act, are not synonomous. “Absent accident (fortuitous event), death or injury of an employee while performing his regular duties in the ‘usual and customary manner’ is not compensable.” O’Mary v. Clearing Corp., 261 N.C. 508, 135 S.E. 2d 193. An accident, as the term is used in the Act, is “(1) an unlooked for and untoward event which is not expected or designed by the injured employee; (2) a result produced by a fortuitous cause.” Harding v. Thomas & Howard Co., 256 N.C. 427, 124 S.E. 2d 109. While there need be no appreciable separation in time between the accident and the resulting injury, Keller v. Wiring Co., 259 N.C. 222, 130 S.E. 2d 342, there must be some unforeseen or unusual event other than the bodily injury itself.

In Keller v. Wiring Co., supra, the claimant was standing in a narrow ditch when, in the course of his employment, it became necessary for him to lift and, with a twisting motion, throw out of the ditch a heavy rock. The twist, under these circumstances, was deemed an accident from which the injury resulted.

Here, the evidence points inescapably to the conclusion that the claimant was doing what he expected to do and was employed to do, was doing it in the ordinary manner, and was free from confining or otherwise exceptional conditions and surroundings. There was nothing unforeseen or unexpected except the injury itself. Thus, the evidence is not sufficient to support the finding that there was an injury by an accident. The court erred in affirming the award of the Commission.

Reversed.

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

*588 Per Curiam.

Except in the case of certain occupational diseases, compensation may not be awarded under the Workmen’s Compensation Act unless there is proof of a disability due to an injury, which injury was the result of an accident arising out of and in- the course of the employment. G.S. 97-2(6). A finding by the Industrial Commission that the claimant sustained such an injury is conclusive upon an appeal to the courts if, but only if, the Commission had before it competent evidence sufficient to support such a finding. Lawrence v. Mill, 265 N.C. 329, 144 S.E. 2d 3.

The terms “injury” and “accident,” as used in the Act, are not synonomous. “Absent accident (fortuitous event), death or injury of an employee while performing his regular duties in the ‘usual and customary manner’ is not compensable.” O’Mary v. Clearing Corp., 261 N.C. 508, 135 S.E. 2d 193. An accident, as the term is used in the Act, is “(1) an unlooked for and untoward event which is not expected or designed by the injured employee; (2) a result produced by a fortuitous cause.” Harding v. Thomas & Howard Co., 256 N.C. 427, 124 S.E. 2d 109. While there need be no appreciable separation in time between the accident and the resulting injury, Keller v. Wiring Co., 259 N.C. 222, 130 S.E. 2d 342, there must be some unforeseen or unusual event other than the bodily injury itself.

In Keller v. Wiring Co., supra, the claimant was standing in a narrow ditch when, in the course of his employment, it became necessary for him to lift and, with a twisting motion, throw out of the ditch a heavy rock. The twist, under these circumstances, was deemed an accident from which the injury resulted.

Here, the evidence points inescapably to the conclusion that the claimant was doing what he expected to do and was employed to do, was doing it in the ordinary manner, and was free from confining or otherwise exceptional conditions and surroundings. There was nothing unforeseen or unexpected except the injury itself. Thus, the evidence is not sufficient to support the finding that there was an injury by an accident. The court erred in affirming the award of the Commission.

Reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

157 S.E.2d 1, 271 N.C. 586, 1967 N.C. LEXIS 1247, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rhinehart-v-roberts-super-market-inc-nc-1967.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack