Case ID: nc_201/html/0836-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Pee, Ouriajvi.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Dependents of W. W. CANTER, Deceased, v. SURRY COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION and MARYLAND CASUALTY COMPANY.
    (Filed 4 November, 1931.)
    Master and Servant E b — Where there is no causal relation between the employment and the injury compensation is correctly denied.
    Wliore the evidence in a proceeding for compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act fails to disclose any causal relation between the accident and the employment, conrpensation is correctly denied, it being necessary that the injury should arise out of the employment to entitle the injured employee to compensation.
    Appeal by dependents of plaintiff from Shaw, J., at July Term, 1931, of Surey.
    Affirmed.
    Tbe bearing commissioner found tbe facts and tbe conclusion of law was to tbe effect tbat W. W. Canter’s dependents could not recover. Upon appeal to tbe full Commission, tbe findings of fact and conclusion of law before tbe bearing Commissioner were affirmed, denying compensation. Appeal was taken to tbe Superior Court, and tbe judgment of tbe court below is as follows: “It is ordered and adjudged and decreed tbat tbe judgment of tbe Industrial Commission is hereby in all things confirmed and tbe petitioners in this cause are denied any compensation in this action; and tbat tbe defendants, tbe board of education and tbe Maryland Casualty Company, go without day.” Tbe dependents of W. W. Canter, deceased, excepted, assigned error to tbe judgment as signed, and appealed to tbe Supreme Court.
    
      Folger & Folger for dependents.
    
    
      McMichael & McMichael for defendants.
    
   Pee, Ouriajvi.

Tbe only material exception and assignment of error is to tbe testimony of Dr. M. S. Martin. We do not think it necessary to pass upon tbe competency of this evidence.

Public Laws 1929, chap. 120, sec. 2(f), (Workmen’s Compensation Act) is as follows: “ ‘Injury’ and ‘personal injury’ shall mean only injury by accident arising out of and in tbe course of tbe employment, and shall not include a disease in any form, except where it results naturally and unavoidably from tbe accident.” See, also, sec. 4.

On all tbe evidence appearing in tbe record, we think tbe death of W. W. Canter, tbe employee of defendant Surry County Board of Education, was not tbe result of an “injury by accident arising out of and in tbe course of tbe employment.” There was no causal relation between tbe accident and tbe employment. Tbe judgment below is

Affirmed.