{
  "id": 8625347,
  "name": "JOHN E. TURNER, Employee v. BURKE HOSIERY MILL, Employer; THE TRAVELERS INSURANCE CO., Carrier",
  "name_abbreviation": "Turner v. Burke Hosiery Mill",
  "decision_date": "1959-11-25",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "325",
  "last_page": "326",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "251 N.C. 325"
    }
  ],
  "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": "246 N.C. 274",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8625913
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/246/0274-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "98 S.E. 2d 289",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "246 N.C. 274",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8625913
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/246/0274-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 231,
    "char_count": 2971,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.445,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.2378961467454003e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7797749984651615
    },
    "sha256": "549d6c3d6258c17a046e5db006f80c95b3524686f4f99eea348fb76c5f34dd7f",
    "simhash": "1:259969b42041233d",
    "word_count": 517
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:26:21.126874+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "JOHN E. TURNER, Employee v. BURKE HOSIERY MILL, Employer; THE TRAVELERS INSURANCE CO., Carrier."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nAfter a careful examination of the plaintiff\u2019s assignments of error we are constrained to hold that -this ease falls within the purview of our decision in Hensley v. Cooperative, 246 N.C. 274, 98 S.E. 2d 289, and on authority of that case the judgment below is\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Coltrane & Gavin for plaintiff.",
      "Sapp & Sapp for defendants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "JOHN E. TURNER, Employee v. BURKE HOSIERY MILL, Employer; THE TRAVELERS INSURANCE CO., Carrier.\n(Filed 25 November, 1959.)\nt. Master and Servant \u00a7 63\u2014\nDecision denying compensation for injury to claimant\u2019s back while doing repetitive work of tbe same type be bad been doing theretofore affirmed on tbe authority of Hensley v. Cooperative, 246 N.C. 274.\nAppeal by plaintiff from Armstrong, J., July Civil Term, 1959,. of RANDOLPH.\nThe plaintiff filed claim under the North Carolina Workmen\u2019s Compensation Act against the Burke Hosiery Mill and its earner, The Travelers Insurance Company, alleging an injury to his back on 24 September 1957, while he was working as a knitter on a double diamond hosiery machine in the Burke Hosiery Mill, Asheboro, North Carolina. The matter was heard before a deputy commissioner of the Industrial Commission.\nThe plaintiff had been employed as a knitter in the Burke Hosiery Mill for more than four years. For a period of at least one month prior to the alleged injury he had been knitting double diamond hosiery. According to the plaintiff\u2019s evidence, during the evening of 24 September 1957 he leaned over the bank of the knitting machine to make a change, which required the unlocking of the friction and carrier. \u201c * * * I was making a change on the machine, unlocking the friction and pulling the friction and carrier out together. In doing so I' felt that I had1 done something to my back. I had a stinging sensation and some little pain at the time, but I went on working that night.\nThe witness gave a written statement shortly thereafter to the ef-feet that \u201cwhen I was moving the friction I felt a pain in my back. At this time I was either* in an awkward position or on one foot.\u201d At the hearing, in response to tire question, \u201cWere you or were you not in an awkward position?\u201d his answer was: \u201cI say it is possible that I could have been.\u201d\nThe plaintiff\u2019s further testimony was to the effect that he had to make \u201ca change like we were doing on September 24 from 12 to 15 times a day. I was doing the same type of work that I had been doing for 4 years.\u201d\nThe deputy commissioner found as a fact that the plaintiff on 24 September 1957 sustained an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment and awarded compensation.\nUpon appeal to the full Commission, the Commission found, as a fact, \u201cThat on the occasion complained of plaintiff did not sustain an injury by accident arising out of .and in the course of his employment.\u201d\nOn appeal to the Superior Court, his Honor upheld and affirmed the decision of the full Commission, The plaintiff -appeals, assigning error.\nColtrane & Gavin for plaintiff.\nSapp & Sapp for defendants."
  },
  "file_name": "0325-01",
  "first_page_order": 369,
  "last_page_order": 370
}