Moore v. Drug Co.

5 Citing cases

  1. Matthews v. Carolina Standard Corp.

    232 N.C. 229 (N.C. 1950)   Cited 13 times
    Holding plaintiff’s injury and death "did not result from a hazard incident to his employment" when he attempted to jump onto a truck moving across employer’s property after hearing the lunch whistle

    And in Luteran v. Ford Motor Co., 313 Mich. 487, where an employee on the premises during the lunch hour was struck by a baseball bat accidentally let slip by a fellow employee, compensation was denied, there being no evidence baseball playing was sponsored or encouraged by the employer. We conclude that upon the record and the entire evidence in the case at bar, the finding that the injury by accident for which claim is made did not arise out of decedent's employment was supported by the evidence, and that the ruling of the court in reversing the action of the Industrial Commission must be held for error. Greer v. Laundry, 202 N.C. 729, 164 S.E. 116; Moore v. Drug Co., 206 N.C. 711, 175 S.E. 96; Lockey v. Cohen, Goldman Co., 213 N.C. 356, 196 S.E. 342; McNeill v. Construction Co., 216 N.C. 744, 6 S.E.2d 491; Blevins v. Teer, 220 N.C. 135, 16 S.E.2d 659. One other matter perhaps should be considered, as it appears in the record and is referred to in the briefs.

  2. Kemling v. Armour Co.

    24 N.W.2d 842 (Minn. 1946)   Cited 7 times

    In Brown v. Minneapolis Bd. of Fire Underwriters, 210 Minn. 529, 299 N.W. 14, supra, this court pointed out that in the Stanton case there was no evidence of unusual exertion as the cause of death, and hence nothing in the record to sustain a finding of accidental injury. The exact opposite is true in the instant case. For further authorities sustaining petitioner's position and which are nearly parallel to the situation here involved, see, Wicks v. Northland Milk Ice Cream Co. 184 Minn. 540, 239 N.W. 614; Roos v. City of Mankato, 199 Minn. 284, 271 N.W. 582; Farrell v. M. C. Ragatz Sons Co. 189 Minn. 573, 250 N.W. 454; Bacher v. Herschkowitz Bros. 245 App. Div. 876, 282 N Y S. 172; Moore v. Summers Drug Co. 206 N.C. 711, 175 S.E. 96; Industrial Comm. v. Smith, 45 Ohio App. 362, 187 N.E. 129; Smith v. Dept. of Labor and Industries, 179 Wn. 501, 38 P.2d 212; Bernstein Furniture Co. v. Kelly, 114 N.J.L. 500, 177 A. 554; Fire Commrs. v. Morris, 12 N.J. Misc. 153, 170 A. 221; Horovitz, Workmen's Compensation, pp. 88-89. See, also, Ogren v. City of Duluth, 219 Minn. 555, 18 N.W.2d 535.

  3. Winslow v. Carolina Conference Association

    211 N.C. 571 (N.C. 1937)   Cited 40 times

    On such appeal, the Superior Court has no power to review the findings of fact by the Industrial Commission. It can consider only errors of law appearing in the record, as certified by the Industrial Commission. Section 60. The statutory provisions to this effect have been consistently and uniformly recognized by this Court. See Mayze v. Forest City, 207 N.C. 168, 176 S.E. 270; Bryson v. Lumber Co., 204 N.C. 665, 169 S.E. 276; Moore v. Drug Co., 206 N.C. 711, 175 S.E. 96; Kenan v. Motor Co., 203 N.C. 108, 164 S.E. 729; Wimbish v. Detective Co., 202 N.C. 800, 164 S.E. 344; Williams v. Thompson, 200 N.C. 463, 157 S.E. 430. N.C. Code of 1935, section 8081 (ppp). These statutory provisions are obviously not applicable to a motion by an appellee in the Superior Court, that the appeal be dismissed.

  4. Tucker v. Blackburn

    221 S.E.2d 755 (N.C. Ct. App. 1976)   Cited 7 times

    Declarations concerning a past condition are no more trustworthy than any other hearsay statements, and hence are not admissible. 1 Stansbury, N.C. Evidence 2d, (Brandis rev. 1973), 161. In Moore v. Drug Co., 206 N.C. 711, 175 S.E. 96 (1934), the court approved, as an exception to the hearsay rule, the physician's testimony as to what the patient told him about present pain and when the pain began. But Moore is not authority for the admission of a patient's statement to the physician witness of his medical history in general.

  5. Inman v. Harper

    162 S.E.2d 629 (N.C. Ct. App. 1968)   Cited 3 times

    Both testified to the history given them by plaintiff, and this was properly admissible. Moore v. Drug Co., 206 N.C. 711, 175 S.E. 96; anno. 130 A.L.R. 977. Defendants' witness, wife of defendant Harper, testified. Defendants sought to offer, by her testimony, prior consistent statements made by her to plaintiff's attorney at the time he was representing her for injuries resulting from the same accident.