Case Title: Clark v. Burton Lines, Inc.

Citation: 158 S.E.2d 569, 272 N.C. 433

Docket Number: 

State: north-carolina

Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

Date: 1968-01-12T00:00:00Z

Document:
158 S.E.2d 569 (1968) 272 N.C. 433 Mrs. Annie Laura CLARK, Administratrix of the Estate of H. P. Clark, and Next Friend of Harold Wayne Clark, a minor son, and William Blanchard Clark, minor son, H. P. Clark, Deceased v. BURTON LINES, INC., Employer and Security Insurance Company, Carrier. No. 848. Supreme Court of North Carolina. January 12, 1968. *570 John D. Xanthos, Burlington, for plaintiff appellant. Sanders & Holt, by Emerson T. Sanders, Burlington, for defendant appellees. PLESS, Justice. The Workmen's Compensation Act and dozens of decisions of this Court are emphatic in holding that if there is any competent evidence to support a finding made by the Commission the court is bound by it. Latham v. Southern Fish & Grocery Co., 208 N.C. 505, 181 S.E. 640. The lower court set aside the award upon the two grounds set forth in the statement of facts which will be here examined separately. The first of these is that there was no competent evidence to support the finding that Clark's death arose out of and in the course of his employment. We cannot agree. The dispatcher for Burton testified that he gave Clark instructions to deliver a load of tobacco to Lumberton and "that when he delivered his hogsheads of tobacco in Lumberton to go from there to our terminal in Darlington, South Carolina, and wait; that he was to wait there for one of his drivers, Troy Goss. That upon Troy's arrival he was to take the cinder blocks from underneath the house trailer, load his trailer up on Troy's flat trailer, and for him to pull the house trailer to Reidsville." *571 The witness also testified that he was sure that Clark obeyed his order. Goss testified that upon his arrival in Darlington that morning "Mr. Clark's truck was sitting in the yard and everything was quiet. I got out of the truck and checked my watch for logging purposes, and I went up to the door and I knocked on the door and no one opened the door and no one answered, and so I looked around the door and saw the results of smoke, so I opened the door, and that is when I seen Mr. Clark * * * sitting in the kitchen area in the chair. * * * I called his name, but there was no answer. * * * I thought he was dead. * * * I * * * made the call to the law [and] also telephoned Burton Motor Lines after we found that Mr. Clark had passed away." The area where the deceased was sitting was charred and smoked, as were the living room and bedroom, and the mattress on the bed was in a state of disintegration, smoldering fire. The deceased was instructed to go to Darlington and wait, and his dispatcher was sure he followed his instructions. From the evidence it cannot be disputed that the deceased was where he was instructed to be and doing what he was instructed to do at the time he suffered death by suffocation. It follows that his death would not have occurred had he not been at the place his employer ordered and at the time he was supposed to be there. Even had there been any deviation from the employer's business on the previous eveningwhich is not to be assumed inasmuch as he did not expect to meet Goss until the following morninghe had returned to the place of his employment and to the duties connected with it at the time of his death. In Jackson v. Dairymen's Creamery, 202 N.C. 196, 162 S.E. 359, the employee, having worked for fifteen hours, stopped and parked his employer's truck in front of a cafe and had supper, got a shave and haircut, and also shot a game or two of pool. Thereafter, while returning the truck to the Creamery he had an accident and was injured. The Industrial Commission concluded that even if the claimant temporarily abandoned his master's business when visiting the barber shop and poolroom and other places for his personal business and for his personal amusement, he resumed it on starting to return the truck of the master to its proper place, and awarded compensation. To be compensable under the Workmen's Compensation Act, an employee must be injured by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. "The words `out of,' refer to the origin or cause of the accident and the words `in the course of,' to the time, place and circumstances under which it occurred." Cole v. Guilford County, 259 N.C. 724, 131 S.E.2d 308. In Perry v. American Bakeries Co., 262 N.C. 272, 136 S.E.2d 643, Moore, J., speaking for the Court, said: All of the cases quoted are fully supported by many previous decisions or have been frequently followed in later cases. The other ground upon which the court set aside the award was that there was no competent evidence to support the finding that the average weekly wage of the deceased was more than $62.50. While the Commission did not state the method used in computing the average weekly wage, it is apparent, and is assumed by the appellant in his brief, that the authority of paragraph 2 of subsection (5) of section 2 of the Workmen's Compensation Act was utilized: In commenting upon this paragraph, Justice Winborne (later C. J.) stated in Early v. W. H. Basnight & Co., 214 N.C. 103, 198 S.E. 577: Here, the evidence showed that Burton was to receive twenty-five per cent of the income earned by Clark's trucks. In the forty-six weeks of 1963 which preceded his death, Clark was entitled to $22,984.34 after the payment of the commission to Burton. From this was deducted charges made to Burton for gas, oil, parts and repairs, leaving a balance due Clark of approximately $13,000.00. It is only logical to assume that the owner of four trucks would get no less than one fourth of the amount paid, or approximately $3,200.00; and the Commission would be justified in making such an assumption. These computations mathematically sustain a finding that the average weekly wage of the deceased was more than $62.50 and that the injured employee would be earning in excess of this amount if he were living. This finding of an average weekly wage in excess of $62.50, in turn, supports the maximum award made by the Commission. The cause is remanded to the Superior Court of Alamance County with the direction that judgment be entered in accordance with this opinion. Reversed and remanded.