{
  "id": 8523709,
  "name": "MICHAEL C. GADDY v. CRANSTON PRINT WORKS COMPANY and THE TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Gaddy v. Cranston Print Works Co.",
  "decision_date": "1985-03-05",
  "docket_number": "No. 8410IC210",
  "first_page": "313",
  "last_page": "315",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "73 N.C. App. 313"
    }
  ],
  "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": "264 S.E. 2d 360",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1980,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "363"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "46 N.C. App. 22",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8548849
      ],
      "year": 1980,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "26"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/46/0022-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "294 S.E. 2d 370",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1982,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "306 N.C. 556",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8571994,
        8571950,
        8572020,
        8571925,
        8572058
      ],
      "year": 1982,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/306/0556-03",
        "/nc/306/0556-02",
        "/nc/306/0556-04",
        "/nc/306/0556-01",
        "/nc/306/0556-05"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "292 S.E. 2d 18",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1982,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "57 N.C. App. 579",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8525314
      ],
      "year": 1982,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/57/0579-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "111 S.E. 2d 185",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1959,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "251 N.C. 325",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8625347
      ],
      "year": 1959,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/251/0325-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "131 S.E. 2d 308",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1963,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "259 N.C. 724",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8562493
      ],
      "year": 1963,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/259/0724-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "116 S.E. 2d 175",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1960,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "253 N.C. 64",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8622414
      ],
      "year": 1960,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/253/0064-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "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"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 416,
    "char_count": 6242,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.824,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.527646540942415e-08,
      "percentile": 0.34792028415556275
    },
    "sha256": "2deed26973a759e5af477731f50f76ead949201d5f80963fd9e528748e3711ce",
    "simhash": "1:3ce11c08511a2cd6",
    "word_count": 1038
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:55:13.639601+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges WHICHARD and JOHNSON concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "MICHAEL C. GADDY v. CRANSTON PRINT WORKS COMPANY and THE TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PHILLIPS, Judge.\nThough defendants\u2019 appeal is from a decision of the Full Commission, the theme mostly advanced in their brief is that the findings of fact made by the Deputy Commissioner should have been adopted and confirmed by the Full Commission. But since the Full Commission can reject, modify, or adopt a Deputy Commissioner\u2019s findings as they see fit, Watkins v. City of Wilmington, 290 N.C. 276, 225 S.E. 2d 577 (1976), our only task is to determine whether the findings of fact that the Full Commission made are erroneous. That other findings could have been made from the evidence presented is irrelevant. Searcy v. Branson, 253 N.C. 64, 116 S.E. 2d 175 (1960).\nThe only exceptions to the decision and award of the Full Commission that appellants have brought forward for our consideration, other than formal exceptions unsupported by either argument or authorities, are to the following findings:\n[PJlaintiff s normal work routine was interrupted, introducing \u201cunusual conditions likely to result in unexpected consequences.\u201d\nPlaintiffs normal work routine was a \u201cgraytender\u201d working with machines which print cloth.\nHis regular job did not entail the heavy lifting required of him in the \u201cjack room,\u201d where he suffered his back injury while filling in for an absent employee.\n[T]he mantle plaintiff and the \u201cjack room\u201d operator were lifting when the injury occurred was heavier than usual.\nSince these findings are amply supported by the evidence previously recited, the exceptions must be and are overruled. Cole v. Guilford County, 259 N.C. 724, 131 S.E. 2d 308 (1963).\nWhen one is injured while performing his customary duties in the usual way, it is not an accident under G.S. 97-2(6). Turner v. Burke Hosiery Mills, 251 N.C. 325, 111 S.E. 2d 185 (1959). But performing another\u2019s regular job and lifting an unusually large and heavy object even for that job, as occurred here, is not the same thing as performing one\u2019s own customary duties in the usual way. In Gladson v. Piedmont Stores, 57 N.C. App. 579, 292 S.E. 2d 18, disc. rev. denied, 306 N.C. 556, 294 S.E. 2d 370 (1982), where an employee lifted a crate heavier than usual, it was held that there was an interruption of plaintiffs regular work routine and she was thus injured by accident arising out of and in the course of her employment. \u201cThe elements of an \u2018accident\u2019 are the interruption of the routine of work and the introduction thereby of unusual conditions likely to result in unexpected consequences.\u201d (Citations omitted.) Porter v. Shelby Knit, Inc., 46 N.C. App. 22, 26, 264 S.E. 2d 360, 363 (1980).\nNo error therein having been shown, the decision and award appealed from is therefore affirmed.\nAffirmed.\nJudges WHICHARD and JOHNSON concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PHILLIPS, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Jackson, Jackson & Bennington, by Frank B. Jackson, for plaintiff appellee.",
      "Roberts, Cogbum, McClure & Williams, by Isaac N. Northup, Jr., for defendant appellants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "MICHAEL C. GADDY v. CRANSTON PRINT WORKS COMPANY and THE TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY\nNo. 8410IC210\n(Filed 5 March 1985)\nMaster and Servant 8 55.3\u2014 back injury while filling in for absent employee \u2014accidental\nThe Full Commission properly concluded that plaintiff was injured by accident where the findings, amply supported by the evidence, were that plaintiff injured his back while filling in for an absent employee whose job involved heavy lifting not required by plaintiffs regular job and while lifting an object which was even heavier than usual. G.S. 97-2(6).\nAPPEAL by defendants from the opinion and award of the North Carolina Industrial Commission filed 5 December 1983. Heard in the Court of Appeals 14 November 1984.\nPlaintiff s claim for workers\u2019 compensation was denied by the Deputy Commissioner, who found that he was not injured by accident in the course of his employment. On appeal the Full Commission reversed and awarded plaintiff compensation with one member dissenting. The evidence before the Commission tended to show the following:\nPlaintiff was employed by Cranston Mills as a \u201cgreytender,\u201d but on 12 February 1981 he was filling in for an absent employee in the \u201cjack room.\u201d Work in the \u201cjack room\u201d involved taking mantles from a mantle rack, carrying them on a buggy to a machine that printed cloth, and placing them in the machine. A mantle in textile parlance is a metal tube designed to fit in the core of a roller used in printing cloth. The mantles involved weighed up to 250 pounds, and plaintiffs task was to help lift and push each mantle into the roller until the end slipped into the \u201ckeyway\u201d of the roller and then place the paper inside the roller and push the mantle the rest of the way inside. According to plaintiff, while placing a mantle in a roller, it struck a burr or rough spot, causing the mantle to suddenly stop as he was lifting and pushing it, and he felt a sharp pain in his back. His co-worker, noticing plaintiffs pain, took the mantle from him and plaintiff immediately reported his injury and was taken to the hospital. Eventually, after a myelogram and other treatment, plaintiff was diagnosed as having a ruptured intervertebral disc and surgery was done on 9 March 1982.\nThe evidence also tended to show that: Plaintiff had worked for absent \u201cjack room\u201d employees about five times before then and before working there the first time as a substitute received one day\u2019s training, whereas employees regularly assigned to the \u201cjack room\u201d were trained for a week or two before beginning their duties. On the occasion involved plaintiff had handled about ten mantles and the mantle plaintiff was handling when he was injured was larger and heavier than the others. The \u201cjack room\u201d operator plaintiff was working with testified that plaintiffs inexperience made his own work more difficult.\nThe Deputy Commissioner\u2019s decision disallowing the claim was based on findings that the mantle involved did not strike a burr as plaintiff contended, but was handled in the usual way, from which it was concluded that no accident within the purview of G.S. 97-2(6) had occurred. The Full Commission\u2019s decision that plaintiff was injured by accident within the purview of the Act was based on findings that lifting and handling the mantles which caused him to be injured was not plaintiffs usual work.\nJackson, Jackson & Bennington, by Frank B. Jackson, for plaintiff appellee.\nRoberts, Cogbum, McClure & Williams, by Isaac N. Northup, Jr., for defendant appellants."
  },
  "file_name": "0313-01",
  "first_page_order": 345,
  "last_page_order": 347
}