{ "id": 8521610, "name": "J. W. SORRELL, JR., Employee-Plaintiff v. SORRELL'S FARMS AND RANCHES, INC., Employer-Defendant, and WAUSAU INSURANCE COMPANY, Carrier-Defendant", "name_abbreviation": "Sorrell v. Sorrell's Farms & Ranches, Inc.", "decision_date": "1985-12-17", "docket_number": "No. 8510IC614", "first_page": "415", "last_page": "417", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "78 N.C. App. 415" } ], "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": "246 S.E. 2d 743", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1978, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "295 N.C. 527", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8564809 ], "year": 1978, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/295/0527-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 319, "char_count": 5840, "ocr_confidence": 0.796, "pagerank": { "raw": 5.298132930532853e-08, "percentile": 0.3342391776508978 }, "sha256": "118f3baec8bd9369e56fa5a33e74b67fe0385b8ef0e7dc65558566f914f54fd4", "simhash": "1:027cda80181ffbb4", "word_count": 927 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:39:04.225821+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges Arnold and Parker concur." ], "parties": [ "J. W. SORRELL, JR., Employee-Plaintiff v. SORRELL\u2019S FARMS AND RANCHES, INC., Employer-Defendant, and WAUSAU INSURANCE COMPANY, Carrier-Defendant" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "WELLS, Judge.\nDefendants contend that the Commission erred in finding as a fact that Sorrell\u2019s Farms and Ranches, Inc. was a corporation engaged in farming. Defendants argue that the evidence showed that while plaintiff had obtained a corporate charter for Sorrell\u2019s Farms, there were no stockholders or directors and hence no corporation by which defendant could have been employed at the time of his injury. Prior to the hearing, defendants stipulated that at the time of injury, the employment relationship existed between plaintiff and defendant employer. Such a stipulation is binding on defendants, see Little v. Food Service, 295 N.C. 527, 246 S.E. 2d 743 (1978); 2 Brandis, N. C. Evidence \u00a7 166 (2d rev. ed. 1982); and such a stipulation made it unnecessary for plaintiff to offer evidence of the validity or legal status of his corporate employer at the time of plaintiffs injury. The Deputy Commissioner\u2019s findings on this issue, while interesting, were unnecessary to the conclusion that at the time of injury, the employment relationship existed. Stipulations of this type are a widely accepted and useful means of avoiding the kind of evidentiary demands reflected in this case and the legal hair-splitting now resorted to by defendants on this question. This assignment is overruled.\nDefendants also contend that the Commission erred in failing to find and conclude that a partnership existed between plaintiff and his wife in the operation of McLamb\u2019s Grocery, the store in which plaintiff was injured. This is but another way of challenging the employer-employee status of defendant employer and plaintiff, an issue we have resolved against defendants. This assignment is overruled.\nDefendants also contend that the Commission erred in finding and concluding that plaintiff was acting as an employee of defendant Sorrell\u2019s Farms and Ranches, Inc. at the time of his injury. Again, this is but another challenge to the employer-employee relationship and this assignment is overruled.\nDefendants\u2019 other arguments are redundant to the others we have discussed and they are rejected.\nFor the reasons stated, the award of the Commission is\nAffirmed.\nJudges Arnold and Parker concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "WELLS, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Bryan, Jones, Johnson & Snow, by James M. Johnson, for plaintiff-appellee.", "Hedrick, Eatman, Gardner & Kincheloe, by Martha W. Surles and Gregory C. York, for defendant-appellants." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "J. W. SORRELL, JR., Employee-Plaintiff v. SORRELL\u2019S FARMS AND RANCHES, INC., Employer-Defendant, and WAUSAU INSURANCE COMPANY, Carrier-Defendant\nNo. 8510IC614\n(Filed 17 December 1985)\nMaster and Servant \u00a7 49.1\u2014 workers\u2019 compensation \u2014 injury to president of family corporation \u2014 employment status stipulated\nThe Industrial Commission did not err in an action for workers\u2019 compensation by the president of a family owned corporation by finding that Sorrell\u2019s Farms and Ranches, Inc. was a corporation engaged in farming, by failing to find that a partnership existed between plaintiff and his wife, and by finding and concluding that plaintiff was acting as an employee at the time of his injury. Defendant stipulated prior to the hearing that the employment relationship existed between plaintiff and defendant employer at the time of the injury; that stipulation made it unnecessary for plaintiff to offer evidence on the -validity or legal status of the corporate employer and the Deputy Commissioner\u2019s findings on the issue were unnecessary.\nAppeal by defendants from the North Carolina Industrial Commission. Order entered 8 January 1985. Heard in the Court of Appeals 21 November 1985.\nFollowing a hearing, the Deputy Commissioner entered an order which contains the following pertinent findings of fact and conclusions of law.\nFindings of Fact\n1. Prior to 1973 plaintiff engaged in extensive farming operations in Harnett County. He farmed on land owned by himself and land owned by his wife. In 1973 plaintiff and his wife formed a corporation entitled Sorrell\u2019s Farms & Ranches, Inc., which is the defendant employer. Plaintiff is the president of the defendant and his wife is the secretary. Since 1973 the defendant has operated the farms which were formerly operated by plaintiff individually.\n2. In 1977 the defendant corporation purchased a store building as well as a house and some land at Hodges Cross Roads in Harnett County. The land on which the store and house were located was put in the name of plaintiffs wife. The defendant operated the store and rented the house with the proceeds of the rent and from the operation of the store being received by the defendant employer. In 1978 a \u201cCombination of Separate Entities\u201d was filled out by some unidentified person. On 29 November 1981 an endorsement was added to the defendant employer\u2019s Workers\u2019 Compensation Insurance policy adding as additional insureds plaintiff and his wife as partners. No partnership ever existed between plaintiff and his wife and the endorsement for additional insureds had no effect.\n3. Plaintiff as president of defendant employer would from time to time check on the store operated by such defendant at Hodges Cross Roads. Late on the night of 30 October 1982 plaintiff was at home and received a telephone call to the effect that he should check on the store. Plaintiff, therefore, went to the store at approximately 2:00 a.m. He entered the store and found everything in apparent good order. As he was leaving the store it blew up. Plaintiff was knocked to the ground with burning objects on top of him.\n* * *\nThe bare facts in this case appear to be that defendants admitted that defendant insurance carrier was on the risk for defendant employer and that plaintiff was an employee of defendant employer.\nConclusions of Law\n1. On 30 October 1982 plaintiff sustained an injury by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment with defendant employer.\nBryan, Jones, Johnson & Snow, by James M. Johnson, for plaintiff-appellee.\nHedrick, Eatman, Gardner & Kincheloe, by Martha W. Surles and Gregory C. York, for defendant-appellants." }, "file_name": "0415-01", "first_page_order": 447, "last_page_order": 449 }