Court Opinion

ID: 9810685
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 21:56:33.723836+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:40:09.603859
License: Public Domain

Stacy, C. J.,
concurring in result: The complaint states no claim for compensation within the Workmen’s Compensation Act. Wilson v. Mooresville, 222 N. C., 283; Hildebrand, v. Furniture Co., 212 N. C., 100, 193 S. E., 294. And while the allegation in respect of employer-employee relationship might have warranted the Industrial Commission in so adjudging, had claim for compensation been filed with it, which accordingly would have tolled the provisions of C. S., 160 until final judgment by virtue of Chap. 449, See. 2, Public Laws 1933 (Michie’s Code 8081 [ff]), still the jurisdiction of the Superior Court attaches in the first instance because of the character of the cause of action alleged. Okla. Steel Cast. Co. v. Banks, 181 Okla., 503, 14 P. (2d), 1168. The commercial, occupational or professional status of employer-employee relationship which is covered exclusively by the Workmen’s Compensation Act was lacking at the time of and in respect to the transaction out of which plaintiff’s intestate’s injury arose and his death ensued. Ridout v. Rose's Stores, Inc., 205 N. C., 423, 171 S. E., 642; McCune v. Mfg. Co., 217 N. C., 351, 8 S. E. (2d), 219. See Liverman v. Gline, 212 N. C., 43, 192 S. E., 849. The relation was after the similitude of invitor and invitee or more nearly that of host and guest. White v. McCabe, 208 N. C., 301, 180 S. E., 704; Norfleet v. Hall, 204 N. C., 573, 169 S. E., 143. The scene is outside the field of industrial employment and the coverage of the Workmen’s Compensation Act. Hollowell *221v. Dept. Con. and Devp., 206 N. C., 206, 113 S. E., 603. Tbis defeats the jurisdictional challenge.
DeNNY, J., joins in concurring opinion.