{ "id": 8626601, "name": "A. W. PERKINS, Employee, v. D. J. SPROTT, Trading as SPROTT BROTHERS FURNITURE COMPANY, Employer, and GREAT AMERICAN INDEMNITY COMPANY, Carrier", "name_abbreviation": "Perkins v. Sprott", "decision_date": "1934-12-12", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "462", "last_page": "464", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "207 N.C. 462" } ], "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": "203 N. C., 466", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8613214 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/203/0466-01" ] }, { "cite": "201 N. C., 539", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8626668 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/201/0539-01" ] }, { "cite": "202 N. C., 481", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8627178 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/202/0481-01" ] }, { "cite": "199 N. C., 733", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8614106 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/199/0733-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 355, "char_count": 5611, "ocr_confidence": 0.433, "pagerank": { "raw": 5.966422560843048e-08, "percentile": 0.3713942395869412 }, "sha256": "bc012bb7f4de80f4ba0c24dbde7ea452b821125dd230728ebaf1ccb38c446c63", "simhash": "1:a7ff897dfde38ae3", "word_count": 974 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:17:31.653514+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "A. W. PERKINS, Employee, v. D. J. SPROTT, Trading as SPROTT BROTHERS FURNITURE COMPANY, Employer, and GREAT AMERICAN INDEMNITY COMPANY, Carrier." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "ClaResoN, J.\nN. C. Code, 1931 (Michie), sec. 8081 (i) : \u201cWhen used in this chapter, unless tfie context otherwise requires: (f) \u2018Injury and personal injury\u2019 shall mean only injury by accident arising out of and in tfie course of tfie employment, and shall not include a disease in any form, except where it results naturally and unavoidably from the accident.\u201d\nIn Harden v. Furniture Company, 199 N. C., 733 (735), it is said: \u201cWhile tfie phrase \u2018in tfie course of\u2019 refers to time, place, and circumstance, tfie words \u2018out of\u2019 relate to tfie origin or cause of the accident.\u201d Goodwin v. Bright, 202 N. C., 481.\nIn Byrd v. Lumber Co., ante, 253 (255), it is said: \u201cOn plaintiff\u2019s appeal from tfie award to tfie Superior Court, only questions of law involved in tfie proceeding and decided by tfie Industrial Commission could be considered. Tbis is also expressly so provided by statute. N. C. Code of 1931, see. 8081 (ppp). Tbe jurisdiction of tbe Superior Court is limited to- a consideration of questions of law only.\u201d\nIn tbe present case all tbe facts are admitted, and tbe full Commission decided as a matter of law tbat plaintiff could not recover. An appeal was taken to tbe Superior Court and tbe ruling on tbis question of law made by tbe Industrial Commission was reversed. Tbe court below bad tbis power, and we tbink tbe decision correct.\nTbe testimony of plaintiff, in part, is as follows: \u201cI was employed as a collector and deliveryman. On 27 June, 1933, I was driving my employer\u2019s truck, returning on Highway No. 15, after having made a delivery at Kannapolis, to my employer\u2019s place of business in Concord. As I was passing a group of boys playing baseball on a field near tbe highway a baseball bit and broke tbe windshield of tbe truck. A piece of glass from tbe windshield got in my eye. I did not return to work until 28 September, 1933. . . . Q. What I am getting at is tbis: Did anything bit you in tbe face except tbe glass in your eye? A. Nothing but tbe glass. Tbe ball, to my knowledge, didn\u2019t touch me at all, only possibly fell in my lap. I don\u2019t know where tbe ball was found. Q. Nothing bit you solidly, nothing but tbe glass, a few fragments of glass went in your eye, and that\u2019s all ? A. Yes, sir.\u201d\nTbe injury was: (1) By accident. (2) In tbe course of tbe employment and, we tbink, \u201carising out of.\u201d Tbe injury to tbe plaintiff employee was tbe glass tbat bit him in tbe eye. Tbe baseball did not bit him.\nIn Whitley v. Highway Com., 201 N. C., 539, tbe injury was a stray shot from a hunter\u2019s gun. In Bain v. Travora Mfg. Co., 203 N. C., 466, tbe injury was tbe stray bullet from one shooting at a sparrow.\nWe do not tbink tbat it is necessary from tbe view we take of tbis ease to consider \u201cStreet Hazard.\u201d Tbe judgment of tbe court below is\nAffirmed.", "type": "majority", "author": "ClaResoN, J." } ], "attorneys": [ "H. 8. Williams for plaintiff.", "Fred B. Helms and Frank F. Exum for defendants." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "A. W. PERKINS, Employee, v. D. J. SPROTT, Trading as SPROTT BROTHERS FURNITURE COMPANY, Employer, and GREAT AMERICAN INDEMNITY COMPANY, Carrier.\n(Filed 12 December, 1934.)\n1. Master and Servant'F i\u2014\nWhere all the facts are admitted and the Industrial Commission denies compensation on the facts as a matter of law, the Superior Court, on appeal, has jurisdiction to reverse the Industrial Commission and remand the cause.\n2. Master and Servant F b \u2014 Injury in this case held to have resulted from accident arising out of employment.\nClaimant was driving a truck in the course of his employment and, while passing a group of boys playing baseball, the baseball struck the windshield and a piece of glass from the windshield struck claimant in the eye, resulting in the injury: Held, the injury resulted from accident arising out of and in the course of the employment.\nAppeal by defendants from Harding, J., at June Term, 1934, of Cabarrus.\nAffirmed.\nA claim, was filed by tfie plaintiff against the above defendants, employer and carrier, for compensation. A bearing before an individual Commissioner, J. Dewey Dorsett, was field in Concord, on 11 October, 1933. Tfie individual Commissioner found tfiat tfie injury arose out of and in tfie course of tfie plaintiff\u2019s employment, and entered an award approving compensation. An appeal was taken to tfie full Commission on 8 November, 1933; tfie full Commission reversed tfie award of tfie bearing Commissioner and found tfiat tfie injury did not arise out of and in tfie course of tfie plaintiff\u2019s employment, and entered an order denying compensation and dismissing the case. Tfie plaintiff appealed to tfie Superior Court. His Honor, Judge \u00a5m. F. Harding, found on tfie facts tfiat tfie accident did arise out of and in tfie course of the plaintiff\u2019s employment, reversed tfie decision of tfie Commission, and directed tfiat tfie cause be remanded to tfie Industrial Commission. Tfie defendants excepted, assigned error, and appealed to tfie Supreme Court.\nIt is admitted tfiat on 27 June, 1933, A. W. Perkins, tfie plaintiff, was one of more than five employees of D. J. Sprott, trading as Sprott Brothers Furniture Company, in Concord, North. Carolina; tfiat tfie contract of employment was made under and was being performed subject to tfie provisions of tfie Consolidated Statutes of North Carolina, known as tfie \u201cWorkmen\u2019s Compensation Act,\u201d and was covered by a policy of insurance in full force and effect with tfie Great American Indemnity Company; tfiat tfie average weekly wages of tfie plaintiff were twelve dollars and fifty cents ($12.50), and tfiat as a result of tfie injury tfie plaintiff sustained a permanent loss of fifty-one per cent (51%) of tfie vision of fiis right eye.\nH. 8. Williams for plaintiff.\nFred B. Helms and Frank F. Exum for defendants." }, "file_name": "0462-01", "first_page_order": 530, "last_page_order": 532 }