{
  "id": 8626668,
  "name": "H. R. WHITLEY v. NORTH CAROLINA STATE HIGHWAY COMMISSION, Self-Insurer",
  "name_abbreviation": "Whitley v. North Carolina State Highway Commission",
  "decision_date": "1931-10-28",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "539",
  "last_page": "541",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "201 N.C. 539"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C.",
    "id": 9292,
    "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 282,
    "char_count": 4119,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.444,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.618465395508036e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8210812676723623
    },
    "sha256": "f034533e8436caff73950dd5f7da375cb47150829de1e472b487b43fe62e3a38",
    "simhash": "1:39b3a3e7308e8bf3",
    "word_count": 733
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:25:15.863450+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "H. R. WHITLEY v. NORTH CAROLINA STATE HIGHWAY COMMISSION, Self-Insurer."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Clarkson, J.\nPlaintiff, in bis request to tbe North Carolina Industrial Commission that bis claim be allowed, states: \u201cWe have been unable to agree because I believe tbe accident happened while I was in tbe performance of my duties to tbe State Highway Commission, and therefore, I am entitled to compensation.\u201d Plaintiff\u2019s contention was correct, in part, be was on duty when tbe unfortunate accident happened by which be lost tbe vision of bis left eye. An unfortunate and deplorable occurrence and tbe sorrow of tbe party who did tbe injury is thus expressed: \u201cI am willing to do' anything, for him I can. I bated tbe accident so bad. I have never bit anything when I bunted before. I would not have done it for anything in tbe world. I did not sleep any for two or three nights worrying about it.\u201d\nRecovery by tbe workman can be only \u201ccompensation for personal injury or death by accident arising out of and in tbe course of tbe employment,\u201d etc. Public Laws 1929, chap. 120, part sec. 4.\nFrom plaintiff\u2019s request it may be noted that be says \u201ctbe accident happened while I was in the performance of my duties.\u201d This is correct, but tbe law goes further \u2014 it must not only be when be is 'on duty \u201cin tbe course of tbe employment,\u201d but tbe compensation is \u201cfor personal injury or death by accident arising out of and in tbe course of tbe employment.\u201d Humanitarian ideals prompted the passage of tbe act and this Court in considering tbe bigb purpose, has given it a liberal construction, but we cannot stretch tbe act to say tbe unfortunate accident to plaintiff arose out of tbe employment. Tbe general principle stated by plaintiff in cases cited is correct, but not applicable to tbe facts in tbis actipn.\nWe tbink there is no causal relation between tbe accident and tbe employment. For tbe reasons given tbe judgment of tbe court below is\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Clarkson, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Blount & James for plaintiff.",
      "Charles Boss for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "H. R. WHITLEY v. NORTH CAROLINA STATE HIGHWAY COMMISSION, Self-Insurer.\n(Filed 28 October, 1931.)\nMaster and Servant F b \u2014 In this case held: injury to employee did not arise out of the employment and compensation was properly denied.\nIn order for an injury to be compensable under the Workmen\u2019s Compensation Act it must not only arise in the course of the employment but also arise out of the employment with a causal connection between the accident and the employment, and where an employee of the State Highway Commission, while engaged in his employment, is accidentally shot by a hunter, the injury does not arise out of the employment and is not compensable even under a liberal interpretation of the statute.\nAppeal by plaintiff from Devin, J'., at May Term, 1931, of Pitt.\nAffirmed.\nPlaintiff was an employee of the State Highway Commission.* On 5 February, 1930, he was accidentally shot by one O. S. Kittrell, while bird hunting, in the left eye and lost the vision. When shot plaintiff was at defendant\u2019s truck shed about a mile or so from Greenville, N. 0., on Highway No. 91.\nPlaintiff\u2019s version of tbe occurrence is as follows: \u201cI bad eaten dinner and started working on tbe truck \u2014 and I started to wipe some grease off tbe truck so we could jtut tbe transmission in and not get greasy. I bad been at work a while and near one o\u2019clock I was standing beside tbe truck on tbe other side of tbe truck. Tbe truck was beaded toward tbe shed. I was wiping grease out of tbe foot board. All of a sudden I felt something stinging me and several things bit me on tbe shoulder. I beard a gun fire and I felt this and my eye started hurting and I knew I was shot. I called to tbe one that shot me and be came over there and Mr. Kittrell took me on to tbe car and Mr. Morton took me to Dr. Brown\u2019s office.\u201d\nTbe North Carolina Industrial Commission made an award to plaintiff. Tbe defendant appealed to tbe Superior Court and tbe decision of tbe Commission was reversed on tbe ground \u201cthat tbe injury complained of did not arise out of tbe plaintiff\u2019s employment, tbe decision of tbe Industrial Commission is reversed, and tbe award denied.\u201d From .the judgment plaintiff appealed to tbe Supreme Court.\nBlount & James for plaintiff.\nCharles Boss for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0539-01",
  "first_page_order": 613,
  "last_page_order": 615
}