Ridout v. Rose's 5-10-25c Stores

171 S.E. 642, 205 N.C. 423, 1933 N.C. LEXIS 577

• Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
• Decided: November 22, 1933
• Status: Published

Opinion

Adams, J.

Tbe 'Workmen’s Compensation Law defines “injury” and “personal injury” as injury by accident arising out of and iii tlie course of tbe employment — tbe words “out of” referring to tbe origin or cause* of tbe accident and tbe words “in tbe course of” to' tbe time, place and circumstances under wbicb tbe accident occurred. Compensation Law, sec. 2(f) ; Conrad v. Foundry Co., 198 N. C., 723. Whether tbe accident-complained of arose out of and in tbe course of the employment is a mixed question of law and fact (Harden v. Furniture Co., 199 N. C., 733); but tbe facts as found by tbe Commission, when supported by competent evidence, are “conclusive and binding” on the appellate courts. Compensation Law, sec. 60; Bryson v. Lumber Co., 204 N. C., 664; Johnson v. Bagging Co., 203 N. C., 579; Wimbish v. Detective Co., 202 N. C., 800.

Tbe Industrial Commission found from tbe conflicting evidence that tbe death of tbe employees occurred while they were engaged in an adventure primarily for personal and social reasons and not in tbe performance of any duty expressly or impliedly connected with their employment, and that their receipt of tbe goods was incidental to tbe trip. It is obvious that from Saturday night until Monday morning tbe relation of employer and employee was suspended, and that there was no causal relation between the employment and tbe accident. Canter v. Board of Education, 201 N. C., 836; Dependents of Phifer v. Dairy, 200 N. C., 65. It follows that the death of tbe employees did not arise out of and in the course of their employment. Judgment

Affirmed.