{
  "id": 8551231,
  "name": "ALBERT RAY COUSINS, Employee v. ALVIN S. HOOD, Employer",
  "name_abbreviation": "Cousins v. Hood",
  "decision_date": "1970-05-27",
  "docket_number": "No. 703IC100",
  "first_page": "309",
  "last_page": "311",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "8 N.C. App. 309"
    }
  ],
  "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": "274 N.C. 379",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8560321,
        8560296,
        8560367,
        8560278,
        8560348
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/274/0379-03",
        "/nc/274/0379-02",
        "/nc/274/0379-05",
        "/nc/274/0379-01",
        "/nc/274/0379-04"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "162 S.E. 2d 571",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1968,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "Certiorari denied, 274 N.C. 379"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "2 N.C. App. 43",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8550824
      ],
      "year": 1968,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "48",
          "parenthetical": "Certiorari denied, 274 N.C. 379"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/2/0043-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 283,
    "char_count": 4801,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.607,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 8.229531765708318e-08,
      "percentile": 0.47728593443092626
    },
    "sha256": "0cfadfbeb802e22ababfbc7743ffa138ceb09f9a973fcbc162157b86e1110f35",
    "simhash": "1:2cbd03771ca2f79d",
    "word_count": 801
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:36:14.673474+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "PaeicbR and VaughN, JJ., concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "ALBERT RAY COUSINS, Employee v. ALVIN S. HOOD, Employer"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Campbell, J.\nThe sole question before us on appeal is whether, at the time of Albert\u2019s injury, Hood regularly employed five or more persons and was subject to and bound by the Workmen\u2019s Compensation Act.\nIf Hood did not \u201cregularly employ\u201d five or more employees, he is not subject to and bound by the Act. The statute G.S. 97-2(1) does not define \u201cregularly employed.\u201d\nThe undisputed evidence discloses that on 15 April 1968 and for sometime prior thereto Hood operated two automobile service stations. One was a Texaco station located on East Front Street in New Bern. The other was a Sinclair service station located in James City which was about one-fourth mile from the Texaco station. There were three full-time employees at the Texaco station, namely, Raymond Cumbo, Charles Whitehead and Jessie Whitehead. Albert operated the Sinclair station, but when additional help was needed there, one or more of the three regular employees at the Texaco station would come over and assist Albert at the Sinclair station.\nSome eight days prior to Albert\u2019s injury on 15 April 1968, Hood employed Albert\u2019s brother, Earl Cousins, to keep the Sinclair station open at night beyond regular hours in an effort to see if this would increase business at that station. Earl had other employment as a full-time employee with the State of North Carolina. Pursuant to this arrangement, Earl worked two hours or so every evening during the eight days immediately prior to the date of the injury received by Albert.\nHood testified:\n\u201cDuring the week or two before Albert got hurt Earl worked part of the day in the evening. I believe he worked every day during that time. He worked fairly regularly during that week or two weeks, whichever it was. He worked regularly during the day with the State.\u201d\nUnder the evidence of this case the decisive question is: On 15 April 1968, when Albert was injured, was Earl \u201cregularly employed\u201d by Hood?.\nAs stated in Patterson v. Parker & Co., 2 N.C. App. 43, 48, 162 S.E. 2d 571 (1968) (Certiorari denied, 274 N.C. 379).\n\u201cWe believe that the term \u2018regularly employed\u2019 connotes employment of the same number of persons throughout the period with some constancy. ...\u201d\nIn the instant case Earl had been working regularly eight days. There was no indication at the time of Albert\u2019s accident that the employment of Earl was to be terminated. His job was to keep the station open at night beyond the regular hours to see if this practice would result in more business at that station. The fact that Earl was also employed full time for the State of North Carolina is inconsequential. It did not prevent him from being one of the 5 regular employees of Hood.\nWe find no error in law in the opinion, findings and award of the Industrial Commission herein.\nAfiirmed.\nPaeicbR and VaughN, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Campbell, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Robert G. Bowers for employee-appellee.",
      "Dunn & Dunn by Raymond E. Dunn for employer-appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "ALBERT RAY COUSINS, Employee v. ALVIN S. HOOD, Employer\nNo. 703IC100\n(Filed 27 May 1970)\nMaster and Servant \u00a7 48\u2014 employers subject to Compensation Act \u2014 regular employee \u2014 part-time employee\nIn this workmen\u2019s compensation proceeding, claimant\u2019s brother was a \u201cregular employee\u201d of defendant service station operator where he was employed eight days prior to the accident in question to keep one of defendant\u2019s stations open at night beyond regular hours to see if this would increase business at the station and had worked for two hours every evening during the eight days, notwithstanding he was a full-time state employee; consequently, defendant employer who also employed four full-time employees at his two service stations \u201cregularly employed\u201d five persons and was subject to the Workmen\u2019s Compensation Act.\nAppeal by Hood, Employer, from an Award of the North Carolina Industrial Commission.\nAlbert Ray Cousins (Albert), the employee, received injuries in the course of his employment on 15 April 1968 when an automobile on which he was working began to roll and crushed him against a workbench. He sustained a multiple fracture of the left femur from which he has not recovered and for which corrective surgery is required. A hearing was held in New Bern on 22 January 1969 by Deputy Commissioner Thomas. Deputy Commissioner Thomas denied compensation for lack of jurisdiction as he found that the defendant-employer did not have five regular employees on and prior to 15 April 1968. On appeal to the Full Commission it was held, \u201c[t]he defendant employer did have five or more employees in his operation of his service stations on and prior to April 15, 1968, and 'the parties hereto are subject to and bound by the provisions of the North Carolina Workmen\u2019s Compensation Act. G.S. 97-2(1).\u201d\nThe Full Commission thereupon entered an Award, from which Award Hood appealed to this Court.\nRobert G. Bowers for employee-appellee.\nDunn & Dunn by Raymond E. Dunn for employer-appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0309-01",
  "first_page_order": 333,
  "last_page_order": 335
}