Vassor v. Albemarle Paper Co.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Vassor v. Albemarle Paper Co.

197 S.E.2d 260, 18 N.C. App. 570, 1973 N.C. App. LEXIS 1941

CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina

DecidedJune 27, 1973

DocketNo. 736IC400

StatusPublished

This text of 197 S.E.2d 260 (Vassor v. Albemarle Paper Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Vassor v. Albemarle Paper Co., 197 S.E.2d 260, 18 N.C. App. 570, 1973 N.C. App. LEXIS 1941 (N.C. Ct. App. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

MORRIS, Judge.

We are of the opinion that the findings of fact of the Industrial Commission are supported by competent evidence and are binding upon us on this appeal. Therefore, the only issue to be discussed is whether the findings of fact support the conclusions of the Industrial Commission as a matter of law. Thomason v. Cab Co., 235 N.C. 602, 70 S.E. 2d 706 (1952).

There is no controversy concerning the fact that the injury suffered by the employee Vassor arose out of and in the course of his employment. The sole question presented on this appeal is whether the injury suffered by Vassor resulted from an injury by accident. A back injury, such as was suffered by Vassor here, does not arise by accident if the employee at the time of injury was merely carrying out his usual customary duties in the usual way. Lawrence v. Mill, 265 N.C. 329, 144 S.E. 2d 3 (1965); Gray v. Storage, Inc., 10 N.C. App. 668, 179 S.E. 2d 883 (1971).

In that regard we are of the opinion that the findings of fact in this case supported by competent evidence, justify the legal conclusion that the employee’s injury did not result from an injury by accident.

Affirmed.

Judges Britt and Vaughn concur.

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

MORRIS, Judge.

We are of the opinion that the findings of fact of the Industrial Commission are supported by competent evidence and are binding upon us on this appeal. Therefore, the only issue to be discussed is whether the findings of fact support the conclusions of the Industrial Commission as a matter of law. Thomason v. Cab Co., 235 N.C. 602, 70 S.E. 2d 706 (1952).

There is no controversy concerning the fact that the injury suffered by the employee Vassor arose out of and in the course of his employment. The sole question presented on this appeal is whether the injury suffered by Vassor resulted from an injury by accident. A back injury, such as was suffered by Vassor here, does not arise by accident if the employee at the time of injury was merely carrying out his usual customary duties in the usual way. Lawrence v. Mill, 265 N.C. 329, 144 S.E. 2d 3 (1965); Gray v. Storage, Inc., 10 N.C. App. 668, 179 S.E. 2d 883 (1971).

In that regard we are of the opinion that the findings of fact in this case supported by competent evidence, justify the legal conclusion that the employee’s injury did not result from an injury by accident.

Affirmed.

Judges Britt and Vaughn concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

197 S.E.2d 260, 18 N.C. App. 570, 1973 N.C. App. LEXIS 1941, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vassor-v-albemarle-paper-co-ncctapp-1973.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack