Wright v. Wake County Public Schools

405 S.E.2d 228, 103 N.C. App. 282, 1991 N.C. App. LEXIS 640
CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina
DecidedJune 18, 1991
DocketNo. 9110IC181
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 405 S.E.2d 228 (Wright v. Wake County Public Schools) 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
Wright v. Wake County Public Schools, 405 S.E.2d 228, 103 N.C. App. 282, 1991 N.C. App. LEXIS 640 (N.C. Ct. App. 1991).

Opinion

HEDRICK, Chief Judge.

The sole issue contested on appeal is whether plaintiff was performing a duty arising out of and in the course of his employment at the time the accident occurred. We find he was not.

It is a matter of law in this jurisdiction that accidents occurring while an employee is commuting to or from work do not arise out of or occur in the course of the employee’s duties of employment. See Barham v. Food World, 300 N.C. 329, 266 S.E.2d 676, [284]*284reh’g denied, 300 N.C. 562, 270 S.E.2d 105 (1980). Plaintiff contends that because his presence was required at a meeting after which his accident occurred, his travel from that meeting should be included within the scope of his employment duties. In support of this argument, plaintiff points to the fact that he was directed by his employer to drive his own car to the meeting.

We cannot, however, find any support for plaintiff’s contentions. Being required to drive one’s car to a meeting is no different from being required to drive one’s car to work. When plaintiff left the meeting he was not traveling to a destination required by his employer nor was he engaged in the furtherance of his employer’s business. He was simply leaving a work-related function and going about his own business on his own time. Under these circumstances, we cannot find error in the decision of the Industrial Commission denying workers’ compensation.

For these reasons, we affirm the order of the Commission.

Affirmed.

Judges COZORT and LEWIS concur.

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

Related

Hunt v. Apac Carolina
North Carolina Industrial Commission, 2005
Gillette v. Dollar Tree Stores
North Carolina Industrial Commission, 2003
Bradley v. Hidden Valley Transportation, Inc.
557 S.E.2d 610 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2001)
Bell v. Conetoe Volunteer Fire Department
North Carolina Industrial Commission, 1997
Aaron v. New Fortis Homes
North Carolina Industrial Commission, 1996
Mullis v. Amp, Incorporated
North Carolina Industrial Commission, 1996
Dwight S. Arnold v. United States
39 F.3d 1175 (Fourth Circuit, 1994)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
405 S.E.2d 228, 103 N.C. App. 282, 1991 N.C. App. LEXIS 640, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wright-v-wake-county-public-schools-ncctapp-1991.