{
  "id": 8551130,
  "name": "HUBERT EARL JONES, Son; PEGGY WHITAKER, Daughter; BARBARA JONES TURNER, Daughter; BETTY MALDONADO, Daughter; MARGARET HARRELL RITTER, Daughter; LUCILLE PATE, Daughter; and NANCY CAROL JONES, Daughter; HUBERT LEE JONES, Deceased v. JAMES D. SUTTON and IOWA MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Jones v. Sutton",
  "decision_date": "1970-05-27",
  "docket_number": "No. 708IC181",
  "first_page": "302",
  "last_page": "304",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "8 N.C. App. 302"
    }
  ],
  "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": "163 S.E. 2d 372",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1968,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "274 N.C. 356",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8560099
      ],
      "year": 1968,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/274/0356-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 302,
    "char_count": 5340,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.607,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.3881941959850483e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6422013406959247
    },
    "sha256": "4410bb55104a85064c141d8057bc744c75ce7a7f125489528a1b301422bcf638",
    "simhash": "1:c1e9a36a66a2f0dc",
    "word_count": 881
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:36:14.673474+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "BROCK and HedricK, JJ., concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "HUBERT EARL JONES, Son; PEGGY WHITAKER, Daughter; BARBARA JONES TURNER, Daughter; BETTY MALDONADO, Daughter; MARGARET HARRELL RITTER, Daughter; LUCILLE PATE, Daughter; and NANCY CAROL JONES, Daughter; HUBERT LEE JONES, Deceased v. JAMES D. SUTTON and IOWA MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Beitt, J.\nDefendants contend that the award of the Industrial Commission is in error on the ground that Nancy Carol is entitled to compensation only as a \u201cpartial dependent\u201d under G.S. 97-38(2) and not as \u201cnext of kin\u201d under G.S. 97-38(3). G.S. 97-38(3) provides in part:\n\u201cIf there is no person wholly dependent, and the person or all persons partially dependent is or are within the class of persons defined as \u2018next of kin\u2019 in G.S. 97-40, * * * he or they may take, share and share alike, the commuted value of the amount provided for whole dependents in (1) above instead of the proportional amount provided for partial dependents in (2) above.\u201d\nThe pertinent clause of G.S. 97-40 provides: \u201cFor the purpose of this section and G.S. 97-38, \u2018next of kin\u2019 shall include only child, father, mother, brother or sister of the deceased employee.\u201d\nNancy Carol would thus be entitled to compensation under G.S. 97-38(3) as a partial dependent who is also \u201cnext of kin\u201d by virtue of being a \u201cchild,\u201d but for yet another definition found in G.S. 97-2(12):\n\u201c \u2018Child,\u2019 \u2018grandchild,\u2019 \u2018brother,\u2019 and \u2018sister\u2019 include only persons who at the time of the death of the deceased employee are under eighteen years of age.\u201d\nG.S. 97-2 generally sets out definitions of various terms used in the Workmen\u2019s Compensation Act, indicating that the definitions are applicable when the terms are \u201cused in this article, unless the context otherwise requires.\u201d We fail to see that the context requires any construction contrary to defining \u201cchild\u201d as used in G.S. 97-40 in accordance with G.S. 97-2(12).\nIn Hewett v. Garrett, 274 N.C. 356, 163 S.E. 2d 372 (1968), at page 360, the court said: \u201cG.S. 97-2(12) clearly sets out how a child, legitimate or acknowledged illegitimate, may lose its right as a child to share in compensation benefits: 1. By reaching the age of 18 years, whether married or single. 2. By marriage before 18 unless after marriage the child continues wholly dependent upon the parent.\u201d\nWe hold that Nancy Carol, as a person over 18 at the time of her father\u2019s death, is not a \u201cchild\u201d as defined in G.S. 97-2(12), is therefore not \u201cnext of kin\u201d as defined in G.S. 97-40, and for that reason is not entitled to \u201cnext of kin\u201d compensation conferred by G.S. 97-38(3). Nancy Carol is entitled to compensation as a partial dependent, determined under G.S. 97-38(2).\nThe order and award appealed from is vacated and this proceeding is remanded to the Industrial Commission for proper order and award consistent with this opinion.\nRemanded.\nBROCK and HedricK, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Beitt, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "No counsel for plaintiff appellees.",
      "Teague, Johnson, Patterson, Dilthey & Clay by Grady 8. Patterson, Jr., for defendant appellants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "HUBERT EARL JONES, Son; PEGGY WHITAKER, Daughter; BARBARA JONES TURNER, Daughter; BETTY MALDONADO, Daughter; MARGARET HARRELL RITTER, Daughter; LUCILLE PATE, Daughter; and NANCY CAROL JONES, Daughter; HUBERT LEE JONES, Deceased v. JAMES D. SUTTON and IOWA MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY\nNo. 708IC181\n(Filed 27 May 1970)\nMaster and Servant \u00a7 79\u2014 persons entitled to workmen\u2019s compensation \u2014 18-year-old daughter \u2014 partial dependent\nA daughter who was 18 years old when her father died from an injury arising out of his employment was not entitled to \u201cnext of kin\u201d compensation under the Workmen\u2019s Compensation Act; but the daughter was entitled to compensation as a partial dependent under G.S. 97-38(2). G.S. 97-2(12), G.S. 97-38(2), G.S. 97-40.\nAppeal by defendants from opinion and award of the North Carolina Industrial Commission filed 14 November 1969.\nThis is an appeal by James D. Sutton, employer, and Iowa Mutual Insurance Company, carrier, from an opinion and award of the North Carolina Industrial Commission awarding compensation under the Workmen\u2019s Compensation Act to Nancy Carol Jones (Nancy Carol), daughter of a deceased employee, Hubert Lee Jones (decedent) . It was stipulated by the parties that the employer-employee relationship existed between defendant Sutton and decedent, that the defendant Iowa Mutual was the compensation carrier, that on 31 October 1967 decedent sustained an injury by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment with defendant Sutton, and that the injury resulted in decedent\u2019s death on said date.\nThe evidence disclosed that decedent\u2019s wife predeceased him; that he was survived by seven children who were married, more than 21 years of age, and not dependent on him for support; and that he was also survived by his daughter Nancy Carol who was partially dependent on him for support.\nThe hearing commissioner found, among other things, that \u201cNancy Carol Jones was partially dependent for support upon deceased, and there was no one else, either partially or wholly, dependent for support upon the deceased.\u201d The commissioner found that Nancy Carol was born on 12 December 1948 and was 18 years of age at the time of the deceased\u2019s death. He made the conclusion of law that Nancy Carol \u201cis entitled to all compensation due by reason of the death of the deceased to the exclusion of all other persons. Nancy Carol Jones is entitled to compensation as the next of kin of the deceased * * *.\u201d On 14 November 1969 the full Commission, with Commissioner Shu-ford dissenting, adopted the findings, conclusions of law and award of the deputy commissioner and defendants appealed to this Court.\nNo counsel for plaintiff appellees.\nTeague, Johnson, Patterson, Dilthey & Clay by Grady 8. Patterson, Jr., for defendant appellants."
  },
  "file_name": "0302-01",
  "first_page_order": 326,
  "last_page_order": 328
}
