Thompson v. Transport Co.

10 Citing cases

  1. Hoffman v. Truck Lines, Inc.

    306 N.C. 502 (N.C. 1982)   Cited 45 times
    Stating that “an employer would not be permitted to escape his liability or obligations under the [Workers' Compensation] Act through the use of a special contract or agreement if the elements required for coverage of the injured individual would otherwise exist”

    "Preliminary preparations by an employee, reasonably essential to the proper performance of some required task or service, is generally regarded as being within the scope of employment and any injury suffered while in the act of preparing to do a job is compensable." Blair, Workmen's Compensation Law Sec. 9:32 (1974) . . . . G.S. 97-2 (6); THOMPSON v. TRANSPORT CO., 32 N.C. App. 693. Record at 4-6 [Defendant excepted to findings of fact nos. 1 and 9 and the conclusion of law.]

  2. Deseth v. Lenscrafters, Inc.

    585 S.E.2d 264 (N.C. Ct. App. 2003)   Cited 36 times
    Holding in a worker's compensation case that "compensation is appropriate where an employee is injured while running a 'special errand' for an employer, [but] in those cases applying the special errand rule, the action undertaken by the employee bestowed some benefit upon the employer other than the employee merely coming to work."

    Specifically, plaintiff asserts that the decedent had already begun his "special" managerial job of opening the store because he was holding work-related materials and store keys while walking towards the mall. Plaintiff contends that the present case is analogous to those cases supporting awards of compensation where an employee was injured while on a business trip for an employer, see Martin v. Georgia Pacific Corp., 5 N.C. App. 37, 167 S.E.2d 790 (1969); while running a special errand, see Powers, 306 N.C. 728, 295 S.E.2d 473; or while making preparations to begin work, see Thompson v. Transport Co., 32 N.C. App. 693, 236 S.E.2d 312 (1977). We do not agree.

  3. Church v. G. G. Parsons Trucking Co.

    302 S.E.2d 295 (N.C. Ct. App. 1983)   Cited 2 times

    The defendants failed to except to the denial of this motion; therefore, this assignment of error presents no question for review. Next, defendants contend the Commission erred in finding and concluding that plaintiff's injuries arose out of and in the course of his employment with the defendant, G. G. Parsons Trucking Co. In our opinion, this case is controlled by our decision in Thompson v. Transport Co., 32 N.C. App. 693, 236 S.E.2d 312 (1977) in which we held that an operator-lessor of a tractor-trailer is an employee of the lessee within the meaning of the Worker's Compensation Act. In Thompson we said:

  4. KING v. EPES TRANSPORT SYSTEMS, INC

    I.C. NO. 031286 (N.C. Ind. Comn. Mar. 1, 2002)

    When a plaintiff performs necessary repairs after he is under load or or if he makes repairs in preparation for a specific job for the defendant-employer, the courts have found that plaintiff was acting in his role of driver-employee at the time he was injured and therefore is entitled to workers' compensation benefits. Hoffman v. Truck Lines, Inc., supra; Thompson v. Transport Co., 32 N.C. App. 693, 236 S.E.2d 312 (1977). 4.

  5. Thompson v. Southwestern Freight Carriers

    I.C. No. 314661 (N.C. Ind. Comn. Feb. 1, 1995)

    Our Court of Appeals has made clear that when such a owner/operator/lessor is injured, and the compensation liability of the lessee/carrier firm is in issue, all other aspects of the parties' relationship are ignored, and the focus should be simply whether the activity in which the claimant was engaged was in the course and scope of his employment as a driver. In light of our case law, we believe our Courts would see the present injury to be work-related. See, e.g., Thompson v. Refrigerated Transp. Co., 32 N.C. App. 693, 697, 236 S.E.2d 312 (1977). As the disposition of this case is determined without reaching plaintiff's cross appeal, and no North Carolina decisions on this interplay of Federal and State law are cited, we do not address this issue.

  6. Pollock v. Reeves Bros., Inc.

    328 S.E.2d 282 (N.C. 1985)   Cited 17 times
    Holding that where defendants do not except to finding in a workers' compensation case, it is binding on appeal

    We do not agree with defendants' argument that because Pollock owned the airplanes involved here he was an independent contractor whose trip to have numbers painted on the plane was merely one of his personal responsibilities as owner of the plane. See Hoffman v. Truck Lines, Inc., 306 N.C. 502, 293 S.E.2d 807; Church v. G.G. Parsons Trucking Co., 62 N.C. App. 121, 302 S.E.2d 295, disc. rev. denied, 309 N.C. 191 (1983); Thompson v. Transport Co., 32 N.C. App. 693, 236 S.E.2d 312 (1977); Duetsch v. E.L. Murphy Trucking Co., 307 Minn. 271, 239 N.W.2d 462 (1976); Texas General Indemnity Company v. Bottom, 365 S.W.2d 350 (Tex. 1963). In Hoffman v. Truck Lines, we remarked that one who owns a vehicle leased to his employer is an independent contractor as owner-lessor, but when operating the vehicle in service of his employer, he is an employee.

  7. KING v. EPES TRANSPORT SYSTEMS

    580 S.E.2d 97 (N.C. Ct. App. 2003)

    Generally, a driver is considered to be acting for the benefit of his employer and within the scope of his employment if, once he has accepted a particular job on behalf of his employer, he is injured while engaged in preparatory acts that are necessary in order to undertake that job. See Thompson v. Refrigerated Transport Co., Inc., 32 N.C. App. 693, 236 S.E.2d 312 (1977). Likewise, a driver may be considered to be acting for the employer's benefit and within the scope of his employment where his injuries are suffered while undertaking the performance of specific repairs that are necessary in order to complete delivery of a load already in tow.

  8. Joyner v. Rocky Mount Mills

    92 N.C. App. 478 (N.C. Ct. App. 1988)   Cited 51 times
    In Joyner v. Rocky Mount Mills, 92 N.C.App. 478, 374 S.E.2d 610 (1988), the plaintiff appealed from an order entered by a deputy commissioner to the Commission, which ruled that the plaintiff was not entitled to assert a claim for future medical expenses before the Commission “because the issue of future medical expenses was not ‘properly preserved’ under the Commission's rules.” Joyner, 92 N.C.App. at 480, 374 S.E.2d at 612.

    Brewer v. Trucking Co., 256 N.C. 175, 182, 123 S.E.2d 608, 613 (1962). It is clear that regardless of the Commission's rules, the full Commission has the authority to modify or reject findings of fact made by the hearing officer; Thompson v. Transport Co., 32 N.C. App. 693, 236 S.E.2d 312 (1977). Plaintiff's claim, initially decided by Commissioner Clay, embodied a claim for future medical expenses.

  9. Hoffman v. Truck Lines, Inc.

    54 N.C. App. 643 (N.C. Ct. App. 1981)   Cited 1 times

    Moreover, there is no evidence that plaintiff's employment as a driver for Ryder was in any way contingent upon his making these repairs. This renders the case factually distinguishable from Thompson v. Transport Co., 32 N.C. App. 693, 236 S.E.2d 312 (1977), on which plaintiff relies. In Thompson, the plaintiff was injured while preparing his rig for a pre-trip inspection which was required by the company.

  10. BALL v. MORGAN DRIVE AWAY

    I.C. NO. 108268 (N.C. Ind. Comn. Jan. 1, 2004)

    4. "Preliminary preparations by an employee, reasonably essential to the proper performance of some required task or service, is generally regarded as being within the scope of employment and any injury suffered while in the act of preparing to do a job is compensable." Thompson v. Transport Co., 32 N.C. App. 692 (1977). 5. Plaintiff sustained a compensable injury by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment and as a direct result of a specific traumatic incident of the work assigned on March 30, 2000. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-2(6).