{
  "id": 4153976,
  "name": "JUDY CARDWELL, Employee v. JENKINS CLEANERS, INC., Employer, MIDWEST EMPLOYERS CASUALTY COMPANY, Carrier (KEY RISK INSURANCE COMPANY, Third-Party Administrator)",
  "name_abbreviation": "Cardwell v. Jenkins Cleaners, Inc.",
  "decision_date": "2011-02-04",
  "docket_number": "No. 374A10",
  "first_page": "1",
  "last_page": "3",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "365 N.C. 1"
    }
  ],
  "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": "698 S.E.2d 131",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 2010,
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "622 S.E.2d 492",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        12634500,
        12634501,
        12634502
      ],
      "year": 2005,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/se2d/622/0492-01",
        "/se2d/622/0492-02",
        "/se2d/622/0492-03"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "613 S.E.2d 715",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        12633072
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "719"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/se2d/613/0715-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "360 N.C. 169",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        3792192
      ],
      "year": 2005,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/360/0169-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "171 N.C. App. 1",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8434364
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "5"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/171/0001-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "509 S.E.2d 411",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1998,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "413",
          "parenthetical": "\"Under our Workers' Compensation Act, 'the Commission is the fact finding body.' \" (citation omitted)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "349 N.C. 676",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        571666
      ],
      "year": 1998,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "680",
          "parenthetical": "\"Under our Workers' Compensation Act, 'the Commission is the fact finding body.' \" (citation omitted)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/349/0676-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "266 S.E.2d 676",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1980,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "678-80"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "300 N.C. 329",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8561147
      ],
      "year": 1980,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "332-34"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/300/0329-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "276 U.S. 154",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        3901643
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1928,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "158"
        },
        {
          "page": "509"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/276/0154-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "128 S.E.2d 570",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1962,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "575",
          "parenthetical": "quoting Bountiful Brick Co. v. Giles, 276 U.S. 154, 158, 72 L. Ed. 507, 509 (1928)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "258 N.C. 226",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8560169
      ],
      "year": 1962,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "233",
          "parenthetical": "quoting Bountiful Brick Co. v. Giles, 276 U.S. 154, 158, 72 L. Ed. 507, 509 (1928)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/258/0226-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "698 S.E.2d 131",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 2010,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "135"
        },
        {
          "page": "135"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 326,
    "char_count": 4213,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.735,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.12982294956584e-08,
      "percentile": 0.32293465758042267
    },
    "sha256": "5c9be098ed5fc0be213f1bbbbfcd92ffbdec200ad9b696b4cf27681bfd9d80eb",
    "simhash": "1:08c641ea38fb08ca",
    "word_count": 660
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:57:15.030367+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "JUDY CARDWELL, Employee v. JENKINS CLEANERS, INC., Employer, MIDWEST EMPLOYERS CASUALTY COMPANY, Carrier (KEY RISK INSURANCE COMPANY, Third-Party Administrator)"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PER CURIAM.\nIn the Court of Appeals opinion below the majority concluded that plaintiff Judy Cardwell \u201cwas not on [her] employer\u2019s premises\u201d when she slipped, fell, and broke her wrist yet also stated that the Industrial Commission \u201cmade no findings about employer\u2019s right to control or duty to maintain\u201d the cement area outside the back door of defendant-employer\u2019s premises, where plaintiff testified she fell. Cardwell v. Jenkins Cleaners, Inc., _ N.C. App. _, _, 698 S.E.2d 131, 135 (2010). Further, the Industrial Commission failed to find facts about precisely where plaintiff fell, referring instead to \u201cplaintiff . . . walking through the parking lot to the back door [when] she slipped on black ice and fell.\u201d\nIn addition, our review of the evidence and record reflects that the Commission did not find as fact whether the cement area was part of defendant-employer\u2019s premises or part of the parking lot. The Industrial Commission found facts only regarding the degree of ownership or control defendant-employer exercised over the parking lot, not the cement area outside the back door, where plaintiff alleged she fell.\nWithout such findings, we are unable to determine whether the cement area is actually where plaintiff fell and whether it is \u201c \u2018in such proximity and relation as to be in practical effect a part of the employer\u2019s premises,\u2019 \u201d such that the \u201cgoing and coming rule\u201d would not apply. Bass v. Mecklenburg Cnty., 258 N.C. 226, 233, 128 S.E.2d 570, 575 (1962) (quoting Bountiful Brick Co. v. Giles, 276 U.S. 154, 158, 72 L. Ed. 507, 509 (1928)); Barham v. Food World, Inc., 300 N.C. 329, 332-34, 266 S.E.2d 676, 678-80 (1980); see also N.C.G.S. \u00a7\u00a7 97-84, -85 (2009); Adams v. AVX Corp., 349 N.C. 676, 680, 509 S.E.2d 411, 413 (1998) (\u201cUnder our Workers\u2019 Compensation Act, \u2018the Commission is the fact finding body.\u2019 \u201d (citation omitted)).\nAlthough the Commission need not find facts on every issue raised by the evidence, it is \u201crequired to make findings on crucial facts upon which the right to compensation depends.\u201d Watts v. Borg Warner Auto., Inc., 171 N.C. App. 1, 5, 613 S.E.2d 715, 719 (emphasis added) (citation omitted), aff\u2019d per curiam, 360 N.C. 169, 622 S.E.2d 492 (2005). Because the Commission has failed to make crucial findings of fact, its findings are insufficient to support the conclusion that plaintiff did not suffer \u201can \u2018injury by accident arising out of and in the course of employment\u2019 \u201d and thus is not entitled to worker\u2019s compensation. Cardwell, _ N.C. App. at _, 698 S.E.2d at 135. Therefore, we reverse the Court of Appeals opinion affirming the opinion and award of the Industrial Commission and remand to that court for further remand to the Commission for additional proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.\nREVERSED AND REMANDED.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PER CURIAM."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Pope McMillan Kutteh Privette Edwards & Schieck, PA, by Martha N. Peed and Anthony S. Privette, for plaintiff-appellant.",
      "McAngus, Goudelock & Courie, P.L.L.C., by Jason G. McConnell, Danielle M. Crockford, and H. George Kurani, for defendant-appellees.",
      "Sumwalt Law Firm, by Vernon Sumwalt; and Patterson Harkavy, LLP, by Burton Craige, for North Carolina Advocates for Justice, amicus curiae.",
      "Hedrick, Gardner, Kincheloe & Garofalo, L.L.P., by M. Duane Jones and Ashley M. Ferrell, for North Carolina Association of Defense Attorneys, amicus curiae. \u2022"
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "JUDY CARDWELL, Employee v. JENKINS CLEANERS, INC., Employer, MIDWEST EMPLOYERS CASUALTY COMPANY, Carrier (KEY RISK INSURANCE COMPANY, Third-Party Administrator)\nNo. 374A10\n(Filed 4 February 2011)\nWorkers\u2019 Compensation\u2014 going and coming rule \u2014 findings not sufficient\nA workers\u2019 compensation case was remanded, and the Court of Appeals reversed, where the Industrial Commission did not find precisely where plaintiff fell, did not make findings about control of the area where defendant testified plaintiff fell, and application of the going and coming rule could not be determined.\nAppeal pursuant to N.C.G.S. \u00a7 7A-30(2) from the decision of a divided panel of the Court of Appeals, \u2014 N.C. App.-, 698 S.E.2d 131 (2010), affirming an opinion and award filed on 17 September 2009 by the North Carolina Industrial Commission. Heard in the Supreme Court 10 January 2011.\nPope McMillan Kutteh Privette Edwards & Schieck, PA, by Martha N. Peed and Anthony S. Privette, for plaintiff-appellant.\nMcAngus, Goudelock & Courie, P.L.L.C., by Jason G. McConnell, Danielle M. Crockford, and H. George Kurani, for defendant-appellees.\nSumwalt Law Firm, by Vernon Sumwalt; and Patterson Harkavy, LLP, by Burton Craige, for North Carolina Advocates for Justice, amicus curiae.\nHedrick, Gardner, Kincheloe & Garofalo, L.L.P., by M. Duane Jones and Ashley M. Ferrell, for North Carolina Association of Defense Attorneys, amicus curiae. \u2022"
  },
  "file_name": "0001-01",
  "first_page_order": 39,
  "last_page_order": 41
}