Martin v. Bonclarken Assembly

8 Citing cases

  1. Murray v. Biggerstaff

    344 S.E.2d 550 (N.C. Ct. App. 1986)   Cited 2 times

    "An injury arises out of employment when it is the result of a condition or risk created by the job." Martin v. Bonclarken Assembly, 296 N.C. 540, 544, 251 S.E.2d 403, 405 (1979). For an injury to "arise out of" employment there must be some causal connection between employment and the injury. Bare v. Wayne Poultry Co., 70 N.C. App. 88, 318 S.E.2d 534 (1984), disc. rev. denied, 312 N.C. 796, 325 S.E.2d 484 (1985).

  2. Keziah v. Monarch Hosiery Mills

    323 S.E.2d 356 (N.C. Ct. App. 1984)   Cited 2 times
    In Keziah, the plaintiff's deceased husband attended a golf tournament for the stated purposes of promoting golf socks sold by his employer, making future business contacts, and to play golf.

    An injury is said to arise out of and in the course of the employment when it occurs while the employee is engaged in a duty which he or she is authorized to undertake and which is calculated to further, directly or indirectly, the employer's business. Martin v. Bonclarken Assembly, 296 N.C. 540, 544, 251 S.E.2d 403, 405 (1979); Long v. Paving Co., 47 N.C. App. 564, 566, 268 S.E.2d 1, 3 (1980). It is undisputed that the employer-employee relationship existed at the time of Keziah's death and that he died in an accident during his return from the Pensacola trip. The record indicates that Keziah's position in the company permitted him much discretion in his business activities.

  3. Spratt v. Duke Power Co.

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

    Based upon his Findings of Fact, the Deputy Commissioner concluded, as a matter of law, as follows: On 19 April 1981 plaintiff sustained an injury by accident; however, the same did not arise out of and in the course of his employment, in that the activity in which he was then engaged and which resulted in such injury; to wit, running within the defendant-employer's premises, had been specifically forbidden by his employer and (such activity) was not calculated, either directly or indirectly, to further his master's business, but rather was adopted by the claimant solely for the purpose of satisfying his own personal comfort or convenience and was, in consideration of the known hazards, an unreasonable manner (or method) of doing so. G.S. 97-2 (6); Larson, Workers' [sic] Compensation Law, Section 21.80 et seq., Section 31.12; Teague v. Atlantic Co., 213 N.C. 546, 196 S.E. 875 (1938); Martin v. Bonclarken Assembly, 296 N.C. 540, 251 S.E.2d 403 (1979). On 29 July 1982, the Full Commission issued an opinion and award reversing the Deputy Commissioner's decision, stating that,

  4. D.E.S. Youth Conservation Corps v. Indus. Com'n

    630 P.2d 58 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1981)   Cited 3 times

    Second, the use of the knife cannot be said to be reasonable when possession of such an instrument was forbidden by the employer. See Martin v. Bonclarken Assembly, 296 N.C. 540, 251 S.E.2d 403 (1979), in which decedent, a young resort employee, drowned while swimming in a lake during his lunch hour. The claimants argued that it was reasonable and natural that a young boy would swim at lunchtime to cool off after a hot morning mowing lawns.

  5. Long v. Paving Co.

    47 N.C. App. 564 (N.C. Ct. App. 1980)   Cited 10 times

    An accident is said to arise out of and in the course of the employment when it occurs while the employee is engaged in some activity or duty which he is authorized to undertake and which is calculated to further, directly or indirectly, the employer's business. Martin v. Bonclarken Assembly, 296 N.C. 540, 251 S.E.2d 403 (1979). Whether an injury results from an accident arising out of and in the course of the employment is a mixed question of law and fact. Bryan v. Church, 267 N.C. 111, 147 S.E.2d 633 (1966); Insurance Co. v. Curry, 28 N.C. App. 286, 221 S.E.2d 75 (1976), disc. rev. denied, 289 N.C. 615, 223 S.E.2d 396 (1976).

  6. Merrill v. Salem Nationalease Corp.

    I.C. NO. 882674 (N.C. Ind. Comn. Dec. 1, 2002)

    Therefore, Sykes did not sustain a compensable injury by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment on October 17, 1998. N.C. Gen. Stat. ยง 97-2(6) (10). Martin v. Bonclarken Assembly, 296 N.C. 540, 251 S.E.2d 403 (1979). Harless v. Flynn, 1 N.C. App. 448, 162 S.E.2d 47 (1968).

  7. Deborde v. Forsyth Memorial Hospital

    I.C. No. 338027 (N.C. Ind. Comn. Oct. 1, 1995)

    2. On April 18, 1993, plaintiff did not sustain an injury by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment with defendant-employer. Martin v. Bonclarken Assembly, 296 N.C. 540, 251 S.E.2d 403 (1979); See also Strickland v. King, 293 N.C. 731, 239 S.E.2d 243 (1977). * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

  8. Radzisz v. Harley Davidson of Metrolina, Inc.

    I.C. No. 048337 (N.C. Ind. Comn. Dec. 1, 1994)

    Harless v. Flynn, 1 N.C. App. 448, 162 S.E.2d 47 (1968). "An injury arises out of employment when it is the result of a condition or risk created by the job".Martin v. Bonclarken Assembly, 296 N.C. 540, 152 S.E.2d 403 (1979). Stated differently, an accident arises out of the employment when it comes from the work the employee is to do, or out of the services he is to perform, and as a natural result of the risks of the employment.