{
  "id": 8628947,
  "name": "R. C. BROOKS, Employee, v. CAROLINA RIM & WHEEL COMPANY, Employer, and GREAT AMERICAN INDEMNITY COMPANY, Insurance Carrier",
  "name_abbreviation": "Brooks v. Carolina Rim & Wheel Co.",
  "decision_date": "1938-05-04",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "518",
  "last_page": "521",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "213 N.C. 518"
    }
  ],
  "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": "200 N. C., 165",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8617764
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/200/0165-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "201 N. C., 556",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8626771
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/201/0556-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "207 N. C., 317",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8625723
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/207/0317-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 382,
    "char_count": 7850,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.474,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.5763200958466682e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6795882694319244
    },
    "sha256": "2e70bf5dcbe34d58fce0fc82ea46f2b79a68c624aa6dcd677c1bf3e535a3888b",
    "simhash": "1:387781a22fe727e1",
    "word_count": 1352
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:08:52.368812+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Seawell, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "R. C. BROOKS, Employee, v. CAROLINA RIM & WHEEL COMPANY, Employer, and GREAT AMERICAN INDEMNITY COMPANY, Insurance Carrier."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Schenck, J.\nTbis cause was beard in tbe Superior Court of Meck-lenburg on appeal by tbe defendants, employer and insurance carrier, respectively, from an award in favor of tbe plaintiff, employee, made by tbe North Carolina Industrial Commission.\nTbe principal assignments of error are to tbe adoption and affirmation by tbe court of tbe findings of fact of tbe Commission tbat (1) \u201ctbe injury by accident to tbe plaintiff on 19 August, 1936, was not occasioned by tbe intoxication of tbe plaintiff,\u201d tbat (2) \u201ctbe contract of employment was made in tbis State, tbat tbe employer\u2019s place of business is in tbis State, tbat tbe plaintiff\u2019s residence is in tbis State, and tbat be was only temporarily residing in South Carolina, and tbat bis contract of employment was not expressly for services exclusively outside of tbe State,\u201d and tbat (3) tbe court concluded as a matter of law tbat tbe award of tbe Commission should be affirmed.\nTbe evidence bearing upon tbe question as to whether tbe injury \u201cwas occasioned by tbe intoxication of tbe employee\u201d so as to bar compensation under sec. 8081 (t), N. C. Code of 1935 (Miehie), was conflicting. Tbe plaintiff admitted tbat about four or five hours before tbe accident be bad taken a \u201cjigger\u201d of whiskey, but denied tbat tbe collision between bis and another automobile on tbe highway in which be suffered tbe loss of an arm was occasioned by bis intoxication. There was competent evidence to support tbe contention of both plaintiff and defendants upon tbis question, but tbe Commission having found as a fact tbat tbe accident in which tbe plaintiff was injured was not occasioned by bis intoxication, tbe judge of tbe Superior Court was bound by such finding, and we are likewise so bound. Morgan v. Cloth Mills, 207 N. C., 317; West v. Fertilizer Co., 201 N. C., 556; Southern v. Cotton Mills Co., 200 N. C., 165.\nThere was ample evidence tending to show that the contract of employment was made in this State, that the employer\u2019s place of business was in this State, and that the plaintiff\u2019s contract of employment was not expressly for services exclusively outside of the State, and this evidence was practically uncontradicted; but the appellants contend that the finding of the fact that the plaintiff\u2019s residence was in this State, and that he was only temporarily residing in South Carolina, in which the accident \u25a0occurred, was not warranted by the evidence. With this contention we cannot concur. The plaintiff testified: \u201cOn 29 August, 1936, the date of the accident, I was a salesman for the Carolina Rim & Wheel Company. I operated in eastern South Carolina. I worked out of Charlotte, which was my headquarters. On the night I was injured I was returning home from a sales meeting in Charlotte, which I had been ordered to attend. At the time of the accident I lived in Florence, S. C. My contract of employment was made in Charlotte, at which time I was living in Charlotte, but at the time I got hurt I had moved down to Florence, S. 0., temporarily. I had moved my family down there. My headquarters were in Charlotte. I was to work temporarily in Florence. My living arrangements in Florence were temporary. The purpose of the temporary living arrangement was to be near Myrtle Beach, so I could take my wife and youngster over to the beach occasionally to visit the beach, and because the highway between Monroe and Pageland was in poor condition, and the fact that I had to come here every two weeks made it a hardship to go over that highway. I made my reports in Charlotte and had a lot of things to be attended to in headquarters. I had not abandoned my residence in North Carolina. On 29 August, 1936, at about 10 :30 p.m., while returning to my home in Florence from a sales meeting in Charlotte that I had been ordered to attend, I had an accident, as a result of which I lost my arm.\u201d In the face of this testimony \u201cit cannot be said that there was no competent evidence to support the findings of fact assailed by the exception.\nThese findings of fact bring the case within the provisions of the Compensation Act although the accident occurred in the State of South Carolina. N. C. Code of 1935 (Miehie), sec. 8081 (rr), reads: \u201cWhere an accident happens while the employee is employed elsewhere than in this State which would entitle him or his dependents to compensation if it had happened in this State, the employee or his dependents shall be entitled to compensation, if the contract of employment was made in this State, if the employer\u2019s place of business is in this State, and if the residence of the employee is in this State; provided his contract of employment was not expressly for service exclusively outside of the State. . . .\u201d\nThe conclusion of law of the judge of the Superior Court that the award of the Commission should be affirmed is supported by the findings of fact affirmed by him.\nThe assignment of error that the Commission allowed the plaintiff\u2019s attorneys a fee of $125.00 to be taxed in the costs cannot be sustained. Such allowance is authorized by sec. 8081 (rrr), N. C. Code of 1935 (Michie), which reads: \u201cIf the Industrial Commission at a hearing on review or any court before which any proceedings are brought on appeal under this article, shall find that such hearing or proceedings were brought by the insurer, and the Commission or court by its decision orders the insurer to make, or to continue, payments of compensation to the injured employee, the Commission or court may further order that the cost to the injured employee of such hearing or proceedings, including therein reasonable attorneys\u2019 fees to be determined by the Commission, shall be paid by the insurer as a part of the bill of costs.\u201d\nThe judgment below is\nAffirmed.\nSeawell, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Schenck, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "John H. Small, Jr., and Walter Hoyle for plaintiff, appellee.",
      "Frank Exum and Fred B. Helms for defendants, appellants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "R. C. BROOKS, Employee, v. CAROLINA RIM & WHEEL COMPANY, Employer, and GREAT AMERICAN INDEMNITY COMPANY, Insurance Carrier.\n(Filed 4 May, 1938.)\n1. Master and Servant \u00a7 40h-\u2014\nEvidence held sufficient to support finding of Industrial Commission that the accident causing injury was not the result of the employee\u2019s intoxication, although defendants introduced evidence in conflict therewith. N. C. Code, 8081 (t).\n2. Master and Servant \u00a7 55d\u2014\nThe finding of the Industrial Commission upon conflicting evidence supporting both the contention of claimant and of defendants, that the accident was not the result of his intoxication, is conclusive on the courts on appeal.\n3. Master and Servant \u00a7 39c \u2014 Evidence held to support finding that employee was resident of the State at time of the accident.\nClaimant testified that he was injured in an automobile accident while he was returning from a salesman\u2019s meeting in this State, which he was required to attend, to his home in Florence, S. C. That he had moved his family to Florence temporarily so he could take them to a nearby beach occasionally, and because a certain road he would be required to travel frequently if he resided in this State was in bad repair, but that his headquarters were in Charlotte, N. C., and that he had not given up his residence in this State. Held,: The evidence supports the finding of the Industrial Commission that the employee was a resident of the State at the time of the accident, and that he was covered by the Compensation Act. N. C. Code, 8081 (rr).\n4. Master and Servant \u00a7 41\u2014\nThe allowance of attorneys\u2019 fee to claimant\u2019s attorneys in this proceeding held authorized by N. C. Code, 8081 (rrr), and defendants\u2019 assignment of error thereto is untenable.\nSea well, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.\nAppeal by defendants from Warlick, J., at November Term, 1937, of MeckleNbueg. Affirmed.\nJohn H. Small, Jr., and Walter Hoyle for plaintiff, appellee.\nFrank Exum and Fred B. Helms for defendants, appellants."
  },
  "file_name": "0518-01",
  "first_page_order": 582,
  "last_page_order": 585
}