{ "id": 8553000, "name": "VIOLA MAE STROUD v. NORTH CAROLINA MEMORIAL HOSPITAL", "name_abbreviation": "Stroud v. North Carolina Memorial Hospital", "decision_date": "1972-08-02", "docket_number": "No. 7215IC460", "first_page": "592", "last_page": "594", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "15 N.C. App. 592" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.", "id": 14983, "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 5, "name_long": "North Carolina", "name": "N.C." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "275 N.C. 354", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8558771 ], "year": 1969, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/275/0354-01" ] }, { "cite": "164 S.E. 2d 748", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1968, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "3 N.C. App. 343", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8554922 ], "year": 1968, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/3/0343-01" ] }, { "cite": "159 S.E. 2d 28", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1968, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "272 N.C. 680", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8574296 ], "year": 1968, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/272/0680-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 229, "char_count": 3705, "ocr_confidence": 0.523, "pagerank": { "raw": 8.851851822146129e-08, "percentile": 0.49859161673132296 }, "sha256": "406f13abf78a22919f1bc20608aca792a74df0adf12c3d4b1ec24b5092fd0b11", "simhash": "1:d78d318915ea4c56", "word_count": 607 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:26:51.335715+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges Brock and Hedrick concur." ], "parties": [ "VIOLA MAE STROUD v. NORTH CAROLINA MEMORIAL HOSPITAL" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "MORRIS, Judge.\nUpon appeal from an award of the Industrial Commission, our inquiry is limited to two questions of law: (1) Whether there was any competent evidence before the Commission to support its findings of fact; and (2) Whether the findings of fact of the Commission justify its legal conclusions and decision. Bailey v. Dept. of Mental Health, 272 N.C. 680, 159 S.E. 2d 28 (1968). The Industrial Commission\u2019s findings of fact are conclusive on appeal when supported by competent evidence. G.S. 143-293. This is true even when there is evidence which would support findings to the contrary. Bailey v. Dept. of Mental Health, supra.\nWe hold that the findings of the Commission that plaintiff was an invitee of defendant, that plaintiff was injured by a negligent act on the part of a State employee acting in the scope of her employment, and that plaintiff was not contributorily negligent are supported by competent evidence. See Crawford v. Board of Education, 3 N.C. App. 343, 164 S.E. 2d 748 (1968), aff\u2019d 275 N.C. 354 (1969). Similarly we hold that the findings of fact are sufficient to support the Full Commission\u2019s conclusion that plaintiff was entitled to recover.\nThe opinion and award of the Full Commission is\nAffirmed.\nJudges Brock and Hedrick concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "MORRIS, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Attorney General Morgan, by Associate Attorney Conely, for defendant petitioner.", "Winston, Coleman and Bernkolz, by Barry T. Winston, for plaintiff respondent." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "VIOLA MAE STROUD v. NORTH CAROLINA MEMORIAL HOSPITAL\nNo. 7215IC460\n(Filed 2 August 1972)\n1. State \u00a7 10\u2014 tort claim \u2014 review of findings of fact\nThe Industrial Commission\u2019s findings of fact are conclusive on appeal when supported by competent evidence even though there is evidence which would support contrary findings.\n2. State \u00a7 8\u2014 tort claim \u2014 State hospital \u2014 visitor \u2014 fall on salad oil on floor\nIn an action under the Tort Claims Act to recover for injuries allegedly sustained when plaintiff slipped and fell on salad dressing which had been spilled by an employee of defendant hospital in front of a service elevator, the evidence was sufficient to support findings by the Industrial Commission that plaintiff was an invitee of defendant hospital, that plaintiff was injured by a negligent act on the part of a State employee acting in the scope of her employment, and that plaintiff was not contributorily negligent.\nOn writ of certiorari to review opinion and award of the North Carolina Industrial Commission filed 20 January 1972.\nAppellant failed to docket the appeal within the time allowed by our rules. Prior to argument, appellant requested that the appeal be treated as a petition for writ of certiorari, and plaintiff has filed no objections. We choose to issue the writ and consider the case on its merits.\nPlaintiff filed an affidavit with the Industrial Commission claiming that she was injured as a result of the negligent act of an employee of the State and was entitled to recover under the State Tort Claims Act (G.S. 143-291, et seq.). Plaintiff alleged that while visiting her husband who was a patient in defendant Hospital, she slipped and fell on vinegar and oil salad dressing which had been spilled by an employee of defendant in front of a service elevator.\nThere was a full hearing before Commissioner Shuford of the Industrial Commission on 26 May 1971 at which time evidence was presented by both plaintiff and defendant. From an order entered by Commissioner Shuford on 2 July 1971 awarding plaintiff $5,000 in damages, defendant gave notice of appeal. The Full Commission made one additional finding of fact and affirmed the earlier decision of the hearing commissioner. The defendant Hospital duly excepted and appealed to this Court.\nAttorney General Morgan, by Associate Attorney Conely, for defendant petitioner.\nWinston, Coleman and Bernkolz, by Barry T. Winston, for plaintiff respondent." }, "file_name": "0592-01", "first_page_order": 616, "last_page_order": 618 }