{
  "id": 8527996,
  "name": "ROBERT G. HOBGOOD, Employee v. ANCHOR MOTOR FREIGHT, Employer and ARGONAUT INSURANCE COMPANY, Carrier",
  "name_abbreviation": "Hobgood v. Freight",
  "decision_date": "1984-06-05",
  "docket_number": "No. 8310IC771",
  "first_page": "783",
  "last_page": "786",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "68 N.C. App. 783"
    }
  ],
  "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": "158 S.E. 2d 569",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1968,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "272 N.C. 433",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8573243
      ],
      "year": 1968,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/272/0433-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "162 S.E. 359",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "year": 1932,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "202 N.C. 196",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8625295
      ],
      "year": 1932,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/202/0196-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "259 S.E. 2d 914",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1979,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "298 N.C. 298",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8571139,
        8571075,
        8571173,
        8571107,
        8571195
      ],
      "year": 1979,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/298/0298-03",
        "/nc/298/0298-01",
        "/nc/298/0298-04",
        "/nc/298/0298-02",
        "/nc/298/0298-05"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "254 S.E. 2d 236",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1979,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "41 N.C. App. 127",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8548021
      ],
      "year": 1979,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/41/0127-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 97-85",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.",
      "year": 1979,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "292 S.E. 2d 144",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1982,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "57 N.C. App. 619",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8525498
      ],
      "year": 1982,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/57/0619-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "225 S.E. 2d 577",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1976,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "290 N.C. 276",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8560920
      ],
      "year": 1976,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/290/0276-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "269 S.E. 2d 667",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1980,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "672"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "48 N.C. App. 489",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8551366
      ],
      "year": 1980,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "497"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/48/0489-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "304 S.E. 2d 762",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1983,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "764"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "63 N.C. App. 354",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8525105
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1983,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "358"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/63/0354-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 386,
    "char_count": 5815,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.811,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.4244437163111331e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6496676061036764
    },
    "sha256": "02ce0935824168ee4223e1ab54e6227050c0ac8e3b0c35126d190f95b7dbe168",
    "simhash": "1:45b94ff93fab5aa6",
    "word_count": 949
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:24:21.303361+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Wells and Johnson concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "ROBERT G. HOBGOOD, Employee v. ANCHOR MOTOR FREIGHT, Employer and ARGONAUT INSURANCE COMPANY, Carrier"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "BECTON, Judge.\nDefendants appeal from an order of the North Carolina Industrial Commission (Commission) setting aside and modifying the opinion of the Deputy Commissioner. Finding that the Commission acted within its discretion and according to law, we affirm.\nI\nRobert G. Hobgood drove a truck for Anchor Motor Freight, delivering new cats to various cities in Eastern North Carolina and Virginia. After he had driven to Goldsboro and made a delivery there, he logged in as \u201coff-duty\u201d until he continued to Pinehurst the next day to make another delivery. While Hobgood was still at the Goldsboro delivery point, seated in the cab of the truck with a friend who had followed him from Virginia, a man smashed out the window and struck Hobgood with a pipe. The assailant demanded money. When Hobgood claimed to have none, the assailant shot him in the head.\nHobgood filed a worker\u2019s compensation claim with the Commission for his disabling injury. The Deputy Commissioner hearing the claim found and concluded that Hobgood\u2019s accidental injury did not arise out of and in the course of his employment with Anchor. Hobgood appealed to the Commission. His application for review merely designated the portions of the Deputy Commissioner\u2019s order to which he assigned error, and did not present any specific \u201cgood ground\u201d for reconsideration. After reviewing the record, briefs, and arguments of the parties, but without taking additional evidence, the Commission modified the Deputy Commissioner\u2019s order by concluding that the accident did arise out of and in the course of Hobgood\u2019s employment, and by awarding medical expenses and total temporary disability payments accordingly. Defendants appeal.\nII\nDefendants contend primarily that the Commission had no authority to modify the award of the Deputy Commissioner. Since the evidence conflicted on the issue of Hobgood\u2019s status at the time of the accident, the defendants argue that the Deputy Commissioner\u2019s finding that the accident did not arise out of and in the course of his employment is conclusive. Our recent decision in Pollard v. Krispy Waffle #1, 63 N.C. App. 354, 304 S.E. 2d 762 (1983) compels us to reject this argument.\nIn Pollard, this Court reiterated the majority rule that only the findings of the Commission are conclusive, not those of the hearing officer. Under its plenary powers the Commission \u201c \u2018may adopt, modify, or reject the findings of fact of the Hearing Commissioner, and in doing so may weigh the evidence and make its own determination as to the weight and credibility of the evidence.\u2019 (Emphasis added.)\u201d Pollard, 63 N.C. App. at 358, 304 S.E. 2d at 764 (quoting Hollar v. Montclair Furniture Co., 48 N.C. App. 489, 497, 269 S.E. 2d 667, 672 (1980)); see also Watkins v. City of Wilmington, 290 N.C. 276, 225 S.E. 2d 577 (1976); Robinson v. J. P. Stevens & Co., 57 N.C. App. 619, 292 S.E. 2d 144 (1982). The Commission was therefore not bound by the findings of the Deputy Commissioner.\nIll\nDefendants contend that N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 97-85 (1979) requires appellants to the Commission to affirmatively show \u201cgood ground\u201d for review. As this Court held in Lynch v. M. B. Kahn Const. Co., 41 N.C. App. 127, 254 S.E. 2d 236, disc. rev. denied, 298 N.C. 298, 259 S.E. 2d 914 (1979), the Commission\u2019s powers of review are plenary, and the Commission\u2019s discretionary determination of \u201cgood ground\u201d will not be reviewed absent a showing of manifest abuse.\nThe Commission relied expressly on the decisions of our Supreme Court in Jackson v. Dairymen\u2019s Creamery, 202 N.C. 196, 162 S.E. 359 (1932) and Clark v. Burton Lines, Inc., 272 N.C. 433, 158 S.E. 2d 569 (1968), which are still good law. Jackson and Clark establish that an employee, like Hobgood, whose work entails travel away from the employer\u2019s premises, acts within the course of his employment continuously during the trip, unless there is proof of \u201cdistinct\u201d (Clark) or \u201ctotal\u201d (Jackson) departure on a personal errand. Considering Jackson and Clark, the fact that Hobgood was in the employer\u2019s truck at the point of delivery, whether he was logged on- or off-duty, does not determine his employment status.\nWe therefore conclude that the Commission correctly applied the law, and that defendants have shown no manifest abuse of discretion. The order is therefore\nAffirmed.\nJudges Wells and Johnson concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "BECTON, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Young, Moore, Henderson & Alvis, P.A., by B. T. Henderson, II and Joseph W. Williford, for defendant appellants.",
      "White and Grumpier, by David R. Crawford, for plaintiff ap-pellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "ROBERT G. HOBGOOD, Employee v. ANCHOR MOTOR FREIGHT, Employer and ARGONAUT INSURANCE COMPANY, Carrier\nNo. 8310IC771\n(Filed 5 June 1984)\n1. Master and Servant 8 96.1\u2014 ability of full Commission to modify award of Deputy Commissioner without hearing or having additional evidence\nUnder its plenary powers the full Industrial Commission \u201cmay adopt, modify, or reject the findings of fact of the Hearing Commissioner, and in doing so may weigh the evidence and make its own determination as to the weight and. credibility of the evidence.\u201d Therefore, where the evidence conflicted on the issue of plaintiffs status, as arising in the course of his employment, at the time of an accident, the Deputy Commissioner\u2019s finding that the accident did not arise out of and in the course of plaintiffs employment was not conclusive.\n2. Master and Servant 8 55.4\u2014 review of workers\u2019 compensation award \u2014 failure to show manifest abuse of discretion\nIn a workers\u2019 compensation proceeding, defendants failed to show a manifest abuse of discretion on the part of the Commission in finding that an accident arose out of and in the course of an employee\u2019s employment.\nAppeal by defendants from order of the North Carolina Industrial Commission filed 14 February 1983. Heard in the Court of Appeals 2 May 1984.\nYoung, Moore, Henderson & Alvis, P.A., by B. T. Henderson, II and Joseph W. Williford, for defendant appellants.\nWhite and Grumpier, by David R. Crawford, for plaintiff ap-pellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0783-01",
  "first_page_order": 815,
  "last_page_order": 818
}
