Hoyle v. Isenhour Brick Tile Co.

1 Citing case

  1. Spratt v. Duke Power Co.

    65 N.C. App. 457 (N.C. Ct. App. 1983)   Cited 14 times
    Concluding that “[a]ctivities which are undertaken for the personal comfort of the employee are considered part of the ‘circumstances' element of the course of employment.”

    Judge (now Justice) Harry C. Martin dissented on the grounds that at the time of the accident, Hoyle was attempting to get his own work done, although in a forbidden fashion, and therefore his actions did not break the causal connection between his employment and his death. Hoyle v. Isenhour Brick and Tile Co., 55 N.C. App. 675, 286 S.E.2d 830 (1982). The Supreme Court in a 4-3 decision followed Judge Martin's reasoning and reversed this Court's decision. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Branch first stated the general rules governing compensable injuries resulting from accidents "arising out of and in the course of the employment."