Court Opinion

ID: 1282837
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-10-30 05:20:41.13217+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:56.876644
License: Public Domain

82 S.E.2d 85 (1954)
240 N.C. 330
McNAIR et al.
v.
WARD et al.
No. 679.
Supreme Court of North Carolina.
May 19, 1954.
*86 Taylor & Mitchell, Raleigh, for plaintiffs, appellants.
Robert H. Dye, Fayetteville, for defendants, appellees.
ERVIN, Justice.
The evidence calls into play the presumption that the infant plaintiff and his employers have accepted the provisions of the North Carolina Workmen's Compensation Act. G.S. § 97-3; Pilley v. Greenville Cotton Mills, 201 N.C. 426, 160 S.E. 479. Consequently the presiding judge did not err in nonsuiting the action as to the employers, Tscheiller v. National Weaving Co., 214 N.C. 449, 199 S.E. 623; Lee v. American Enka, Corp., 212 N.C. 455, 193 S.E. 809; Miller v. Roberts, 212 N.C. 126, 193 S.E. 286; Francis v. Carolina Wood Turning Co., 208 N.C. 517, 181 S.E. 628; McNeely v. Carolina Asbestos Co., 206 N.C. 568, 174 S.E. 509, or as to Lorenz, who was conducting their business for them. G.S. §§ 97-9, 97-10; Warner v. Leder, 234 N.C. 727, 69 S.E.2d 6. The validity of these conclusions is not impaired in any degree by the fact that the employers may have hired the infant plaintiff contrary to law. G.S. §§ 97-2(b), 97-10; Lineberry v. Town of Mebane, 219 N.C. 257, 13 S.E.2d 429, 142 A.L.R. 1033.
Affirmed.