{
  "id": 8557477,
  "name": "WILBUR HINSON, Widower of Nannie Mae Hinson, Deceased, Employee-Plaintiff v. MR. & MRS. JOHN W. CREECH, t/a JACKSON EGG FARM, Employer-Defendant (Non-Insurer)",
  "name_abbreviation": "Hinson v. Creech",
  "decision_date": "1974-06-05",
  "docket_number": "No. 748IC160",
  "first_page": "727",
  "last_page": "730",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "21 N.C. App. 727"
    }
  ],
  "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": "401 P. 2d 211",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "P.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "66 Wash. 2d 54",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Wash. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        1045413
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/wash-2d/66/0054-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "159 N.W. 304",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.W.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "192 Mich. 577",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Mich.",
      "case_ids": [
        1630423
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/mich/192/0577-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "206 P. 267",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "P.",
      "case_ids": [
        8869350
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/utah/59/0607-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "149 N.E. 915",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "83 Ind. App. 715",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ind. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        5308217
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ind-app/83/0715-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 501,
    "char_count": 7686,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.61,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.135771028113528e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7665159242874777
    },
    "sha256": "15a757e04e89f72898b4d21d641b5150c00b067906937a54aa0b50bf688f137a",
    "simhash": "1:def8c2f5918ec6ed",
    "word_count": 1237
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:32:29.924632+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Campbell and Morris concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "WILBUR HINSON, Widower of Nannie Mae Hinson, Deceased, Employee-Plaintiff v. MR. & MRS. JOHN W. CREECH, t/a JACKSON EGG FARM, Employer-Defendant (Non-Insurer)"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "VAUGHN, Judge.\nGeneral Statute 97-2(1) specifically exempts employment in agriculture and domestic services from the definition of employment within the meaning of the North Carolina Workmen\u2019s Compensation Act. Another exemption is found in G.S. 97-13 (b) which provides that the article shall not apply to farm laborers.\nThe thrust of plaintiff\u2019s argument is that Employer is not really engaged in agricultural pursuits but in the large scale commercial production and marketing of chicken eggs. Plaintiff further contends that cleaning, packaging and delivering eggs is not employment in agriculture or the work of a farm laborer. He argues that the exemptions should be limited to small dirt farms and those engaged in tilling the soil or raising livestock and certainly not exclude an employee who is delivering eggs in a motor vehicle over the public highways of this State.\nIn Fleckles v. Hille, 83 Ind. App. 715, 149 N.E. 915, the court noted, in evaluating the nature of an egg and poultry business, that agriculture includes \u201cthe raising, feeding and management of livestock and poultry.\u201d The court in Davis v. Industrial Commission, 59 Ut. 607, 206 P. 267, observed, after setting forth several examples, that \u201c [e] very standard authority that defines the word \u2018agriculture\u2019 includes in the definition the rearing and care of live stock (sic).\u201d Similarly, the court in Shafer v. Parke, Davis & Co., 192 Mich. 577, 159 N.W. 304, states that \u201cthe raising and care of stock are the ordinary uses to which a farm is put. ...\u201d The definitions of \u201cagriculture\u201d and \u201cfarm\u201d found in Webster\u2019s Third New International Dictionary are compatible with the above observations.\nDepartment of Labor and Industries v. McLain, 66 Wash. 2d 54, 401 P. 2d 211, involved a fact situation very similar to the one at hand. In McLain the following facts were stipulated.\n\u201cMr. Hauenstein owned 22 acres of land near Reardan. With the exception of one cow, for family use, the land was devoted exclusively to a poultry and egg-laying business. The land was not cultivated and nothing was produced therefrom. The buildings consisted of Mr. Hauenstein\u2019s home, some outbuildings appurtenant thereto, and five laying houses. One-day-old chicks were bought and thereafter raised on the premises. Normally, 10,000 to 12,000 laying hens were maintained at one time. The hens, after attaining two years of age, were butchered, usually by third parties off the premises. All of the feed was purchased elsewhere, then ground and mixed on the premises in a feed room at the end of one of the laying houses. Two auger machines powered by %-horsepower electric motors lifted the feed to a grinding machine which was powered by a 15-horse-power electric motor. The ground feed was put through a mixing machine, powered by a 7]/2-horsepower electric motor. It was then transferred to an adjacent laying house by a bucket conveyor powered by a %-horsepower motor. Next to the feed room was a cooler room where the eggs were stored and cleaned by the use of two egg washers, each powered by a 1/3-horsepower electric motor.\u201d\nIt does not appear that the employee\u2019s duties included delivery of the eggs. The court rejected the claimant\u2019s contention that the Dottie Egg Farm was a commercial enterprise and not a farming operation with respect to the Workmen\u2019s Compensation Act.\nCourts from other jurisdictions have reached different results on somewhat similar facts.\nWe are well aware that many modern agricultural enterprises are conducted on such a scale and fashion that there is little to distinguish them from any other business with respect to size, number of employees and nature of employment. Presumably, the legislative branch is also aware of the changes that have taken place but has seen fit to continue to exempt those employed in agriculture, without regard to the number of employees or the size of the enterprise. We decline to don the legislative mantle. We believe that keeping poultry and harvesting and selling the eggs produced by that poultry is an agricultural enterprise and those who labor therein are farm laborers.\nAffirmed.\nJudges Campbell and Morris concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "VAUGHN, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Gerrans & Spence by William, D. Spence for plaintiff appellant:",
      "White, Allen, Hooten & Hines, P.A. by John R. Hooten for defendant appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "WILBUR HINSON, Widower of Nannie Mae Hinson, Deceased, Employee-Plaintiff v. MR. & MRS. JOHN W. CREECH, t/a JACKSON EGG FARM, Employer-Defendant (Non-Insurer)\nNo. 748IC160\n(Filed 5 June 1974)\n1. Master and Servant \u00a7 49\u2014 Workmen\u2019s Compensation Act\u2014 exemption of employees in agriculture and domestic services\nG.S. 97-2(1) specifically exempts employment in agriculture and domestic services from the definition of employment within the meaning of the N. C. Workmen\u2019s Compensation Act.\n2. Master and Servant \u00a7 85\u2014 death of employee while delivering eggs \u2014 jurisdiction of Industrial Commission\nKeeping poultry and harvesting and selling the eggs produced by that poultry is an agricultural enterprise and those who labor therein are farm laborers not subject to the Workmen\u2019s Compensation Act; therefore, the Industrial Commission properly dismissed plaintiff\u2019s claim for lack of jurisdiction where the evidence tended to show that plaintiff\u2019s intestate worked in the egg house on defendants\u2019 farm and made deliveries of the eggs, and that she was killed in a motor vehicle accident while delivering eggs in her employer\u2019s truck.\nAppeal by plaintiff from an opinion and award of the North Carolina Industrial Commission filed 7 August 1973.\n' Plaintiff is the surviving spouse of the deceased employee, Nannie Mae Hinson, who was killed in a motor vehicle accident while delivering eggs in her employer\u2019s truck.\nDefendants (Employer) are John W. Creech and wife Jean Creech, who, under a certificate duly filed with the Register of Deeds of Lenoir County, do business under the assumed name of Eugene Jackson Egg Service.\nEmployer is engaged in the production and sale of eggs. Employer buys chickens when they are one day old and raises them until they begin laying eggs. When the hens complete their twelve to fourteen month laying cycle, they are removed from the farm. The eggs are cooled, cleaned, graded and packaged on Employer\u2019s premises, which he leases. They are then delivered to various stores, institutions, restaurants and individuals in two trucks owned by Employer. Some eggs are sold to an egg broker who takes possession on Employer\u2019s premises. Employer buys all of the chicken feed and stores in it in grain bins located on the leased premises. The bins have a capacity of 26,000 bushels. There are twelve chicken houses and an egg house. Employer also operates a hog parlor on the premises. Employer has five or more employees and does not carry Workmen\u2019s Compensation Insurance.\nEmployee\u2019s duties were limited to work in the egg house and delivery. She cleaned, graded and packaged eggs while working in the egg house. When she delivered eggs, she collected money from the purchasers and kept records on the sales. Her average weekly wage was $50.00 per week.\nA deputy commissioner made findings of fact substantially in accord with the foregoing. He then made the following:\n\u201cCONCLUSIONS OF LAW\n1. The defendants are engaged in an agricultural pursuit, and the employees of the defendants, including the deceased employee, Nannie Mae Hinson, are farm laborers. The defendants are exempt from the North Carolina Workmen\u2019s Compensation Act. G.S. 97-2(1), G.S. 97-13, ...\u201d\nThe claim was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. On appeal to the full Commission the opinion and award of the deputy commissioner was adopted as the opinion and award of the Industrial Commission.\nGerrans & Spence by William, D. Spence for plaintiff appellant:\nWhite, Allen, Hooten & Hines, P.A. by John R. Hooten for defendant appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0727-01",
  "first_page_order": 755,
  "last_page_order": 758
}