{ "id": 8631037, "name": "MRS. A. S. HOOVER, Administratrix of A. S. HOOVER, Deceased, v. GLOBE INDEMNITY COMPANY", "name_abbreviation": "Hoover v. Globe Indemnity Co.", "decision_date": "1934-05-02", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "468", "last_page": "470", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "206 N.C. 468" } ], "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": [ { "cite": "163 S. E., 758", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "202 N. C., 655", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8627981 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/202/0655-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 263, "char_count": 6087, "ocr_confidence": 0.461, "pagerank": { "raw": 9.172768950710949e-08, "percentile": 0.5089501357028924 }, "sha256": "9fb4909fb8ff439b9448d28da96d7ecfbfcb9d0723bee38d3bf4bedb735e0c29", "simhash": "1:0db2e750a46c43cb", "word_count": 987 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:27:02.537957+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "MRS. A. S. HOOVER, Administratrix of A. S. HOOVER, Deceased, v. GLOBE INDEMNITY COMPANY." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "CoNNOR, J.\nConceding, without deciding, that the facts alleged in the complaint are sufficient to constitute a cause of action in favor of the plaintiff and against the agent of the defendant, and that the Superior Court of Gaston County would have jurisdiction of an action instituted by the plaintiff against said agent to recover on such cause of action, we are of the opinion that the facts alleged in the complaint are not sufficient to constitute a cause of action against the defendant. It does not appear from the complaint, construed most liberally in favor of the plaintiff, that the wrongful act of its agent was within the scope of his employment by the defendant, or that such act was authorized or ratified by the defendant. The agent of the defendant was authorized by his employment to procure medical treatment for persons who had been injured by accidents which arose out of and in the course of this employment, where the defendant by reason of its contracts with their employers, was liable for compensation for such injuries, under the provisions of the North Carolina Workmen\u2019s Compensation Act. He was not authorized by his employment to procure medical treatment for ailments which were in nowise connected with such injuries. The act of the agent as alleged in the complaint was beyond the scope of his employment, and for that reason, in the absence of allegations that said act was specially authorized by the defendant, or that defendant had ratified the act of its agent, the defendant is not liable for damages resulting from the act of its agent. The defendant\u2019s demurrer should have been sustained.\nIf by a most liberal construction of the allegations of the complaint, it would be held that the defendant is liable to the plaintiff in this action, upon the allegations of the complaint, it would seem that the North Carolina Industrial Commission would have jurisdiction of the claim of the plaintiff against the defendant. See Hoover v. Indemnity Co., 202 N. C., 655, 163 S. E., 758. The order overruling the demurrer is\nReversed.", "type": "majority", "author": "CoNNOR, J." } ], "attorneys": [ "8. J. Durham, J. L. Homme and J. G. Taylor for plaintiff.", "P. W. Garland for defendant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "MRS. A. S. HOOVER, Administratrix of A. S. HOOVER, Deceased, v. GLOBE INDEMNITY COMPANY.\n(Filed 2 May, 1934.)\n1. Principal and Agent O d \u2014 Held: Complaint failed to show that wrongful act of agent was done in scope of authority or was ratified.\nPlaintiff\u2019s intestate was injured by an accident covered by tbe Workmen\u2019s Compensation Act. Plaintiff brought action against the insurer liable for the injury and alleged that the intestate procured medical services for the injury and also for other ailments not covered by the Compensation Act, that defendant\u2019s agent, employed to provide medical attention only for injuries to employees for which defendant was liable, took charge of intestate and prevented him from obtaining medical attention for the ailments not covered by Compensation Act, and that as a result of not getting medical attention for such ailments, intestate died. Meld, defendant\u2019s demurrer to the complaint should have been sustained, it not appearing upon the face of the complaint by a most liberal construction that the acts of defendant\u2019s agent complained of were done in the course of his employment, or that such acts were authorized or ratified by defendant.\n2. Master and Servant I? a \u2014 Semble: action for wrongful act of insurer\u2019s agent relating to medical attention for injured employee was in jurisdiction of Industrial Commission-.\nPlaintiff brought suit for the wrongful act of insurer\u2019s agent in preventing plaintiff\u2019s intestate from obtaining medical attention for ailments not connected with intestate\u2019s injury covered by the Compensation Act. Insurer\u2019s agent was employed to procure medical attention only for injuries to employees covered by insurer\u2019s policy. Semble, the Industrial Commission had exclusive jurisdiction of the action.\nAppeal by defendant from Harding, J., at December Term, 1933, of GastoN.\nReversed.\nThis is an action to recover damages for tbe wrongful death of plaintiff\u2019s intestate, upon tbe allegation tbat tbis death was caused by tbe wrongful act of tbe defendant.\nDuring tbe month of January, 1930, plaintiff\u2019s intestate was injured by an accident which arose out of and in tbe course of bis employment. At tbe date of tbe accident, both plaintiff\u2019s intestate and bis employer were subject to tbe provisions of tbe North Carolina \"Workmen\u2019s Compensation Act. Tbe employer carried insurance in accordance with tbe provisions of said act. Tbe defendant was tbe insurance carrier of tbe employer.\nIt is alleged in tbe complaint tbat after be was injured by said accident, plaintiff\u2019s intestate procured a competent and capable physician to treat him for bis injuries, and also for certain bodily ailments, which developed thereafter, but which were in nowise connected with said injuries; tbat while said physician was treating plaintiff\u2019s intestate in a skillful and successful manner, an agent of tbe defendant assumed and took absolute and complete control of plaintiff\u2019s intestate, and prevented him from procuring medical treatment for bis bodily ailments which bad developed after bis injuries, and which were in nowise connected with said injuries; and tbat thereafter, as tbe result of bis failure to procure medical treatment of bis said bodily ailments, plaintiff\u2019s intestate died on or about 26 July, 1930.\nIt is further alleged in tbe complaint tbat tbe wrongful act of defendant\u2019s agent prevented plaintiff\u2019s intestate from procuring medical treatment for bis bodily ailments, and was tbe proximate cause of bis death; and that by the death of her intestate, plaintiff has suffered damages in the sum of $3,000.\nThe defendant demurred to the complaint on the ground that the Superior Court of Gaston County is without jurisdiction of the action, and on the further ground that the facts alleged in the complaint are not sufficient to constitute a cause of action against the defendant.\nThe demurrer was overruled, and the defendant appealed to the Supreme Court.\n8. J. Durham, J. L. Homme and J. G. Taylor for plaintiff.\nP. W. Garland for defendant." }, "file_name": "0468-01", "first_page_order": 530, "last_page_order": 532 }