Court Opinion

ID: 9856207
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 06:40:54.745231+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:26:34.109562
License: Public Domain

HiggiNS, J.,
dissenting.
The amendment to G.S. 97-57 was intended to -take care of the *534uncertainty as to carrier liability discussed in Mayberry v. Marble Company, 243 N.C. 281. Decision in the instant ease must be under the Aot as it existed before the amendment.
Asbestosis is of slow unset. The injurious effect of asbestos dust is almost imperceptible in its buildup to the point of disability. For that reason I .think the 'Statute said exposure for less than 30 days shall not be deemed injurious.
The claimant worked for the employer from 1919 until January 11, 1957. Employers Mutual was on the risk from 1941 until December 31, 1956. For 11 days in January, 1957, Liberty Mutual was on the risk. During this 11-day period claimant actually worked five days. In view of the provision that exposure for less than 30 days shall not be deemed injurious, I think the employer’s liability cannot be fixed during any period of employment for less than 30 days, and that, therefore, the employer’s liability must, for that period, antedate January 11, 1957, when the claimant quit work; and that the injurious exposure related back to a time when Employers Mutual was on the risk.
The claimant was found to have the disabling injury and to have quit work on January 11, 1957. The last 30 days exposure period was in December, 1956. Suppose the claimant had not worked at all after December 31, 1956; or that he had changed to another employer with a new insurance carrier beginning January 1, 1957. Could it be said that the new employer is liable? I agree the employer is bound in any event, but I think the Employers Mutual and not Liberty Mutual was the carrier on the risk when the employer became liable.
WinboRNE, C. J., concurs in dissent.