Riddick v. Richmond Cedar Works

43 S.E.2d 850, 227 N.C. 647
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedSeptember 17, 1947
StatusPublished
Cited by16 cases

This text of 43 S.E.2d 850 (Riddick v. Richmond Cedar Works) 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
Riddick v. Richmond Cedar Works, 43 S.E.2d 850, 227 N.C. 647 (N.C. 1947).

Opinion

Stacy, C. J.

The correctness of the award is challenged on the ground that claimant had departed from the work he was employed to do at the time of his injury. Davis v. Veneer Corp., 200 N. C., 263, 156 S. E., 859; Parrish v. Armour, 200 N. C., 654, 158 S. E., 188. Even so, he was instructed on the day of the accident to leave his regular job and to do some work in the vicinity of one of the saws. “Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do,” was apparently within the purview of this instruction. In compliance, the claimant, in the absence of the regular sawyer, undertook to assist another employee in cutting off a board. The fact that he was not actually engaged in' the performance of his duties as lumber-piler at the time of the injury would not perforce defeat his claim for compensation. Brown v. Aluminum Co., 224 N. C., 766, 32 S. E. (2d), 320. He was doing “some work” in the vicinity of one of the saws, pursuant to instructions from his superior. This suffices to repel the motion to dismiss. Rewis v. Ins. Co., 226 N. C., 325, 38 S. E. (2d), 97; Pickard v. Plaid Mills, 213 N. C., 28, 195 S. E., 28; Gordon v. Chair Co., 205 N. C., 739, 172 S. E., 485; Bellamy v. Mfg. Co., 200 N. C., 676, 158 S. E., 246.

As a dernier resort, the defendant says that notwithstanding the determination of the Industrial Commission, the record as a whole impels the conclusion of a noncompensable injury. To accept this view would be to reject the inferences which support the fact-finding body. Kearns v. Furniture Co., 222 N. C., 438, 23 S. E. (2d), 310. Where the record is such as to permit either finding, the determination of the Industrial Commission is conclusive on appeal. Hegler v. Mills Co., 224 N. C., *649 669, 31 S. E. (2d), 918; Fields v. Plumbing Co., 224 N. C., 841, 32 S. E. (2d), 623.

Tbe result is an affirmance of tbe judgment below.

Affirmed.

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

Related

Gregory v. W.A. Brown & Sons
688 S.E.2d 431 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 2010)
Osteen v. Greenville County School District
475 S.E.2d 775 (Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 1996)
Radzisz v. Harley Davidson of Metrolina, Inc
North Carolina Industrial Commission, 1994
Spratt v. Duke Power Co.
310 S.E.2d 38 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1983)
Hoyle v. Isenhour Brick & Tile Co.
293 S.E.2d 196 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1982)
Watkins v. City of Wilmington
225 S.E.2d 577 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1976)
Harless v. Flynn
162 S.E.2d 47 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1968)
Jackson Ex Rel. Jackson v. North Carolina State Highway Commission
158 S.E.2d 865 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1968)
Lewter v. Abercrombie Enterprises, Inc.
82 S.E.2d 410 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1954)
Lewter v. Abercrombie Enterprises
82 S.E.2d 410 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1954)
Rice v. Thomasville Chair Co.
76 S.E.2d 311 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1953)
Singleton v. D. T. Vance Mica Co.
69 S.E.2d 707 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1952)
Singleton v. DT Vance Mica Co.
69 S.E.2d 707 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1952)
Vause v. Vause Farm Equipment Co.
63 S.E.2d 173 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1951)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
43 S.E.2d 850, 227 N.C. 647, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/riddick-v-richmond-cedar-works-nc-1947.