Brown v. Carolina Aluminum Co.

Stacy, O. J. The deceased was employed by the defendant as a watchman in its plant at Badin. He had checked in for the day’s work. Mion v. Marble ■& Tile Go., 217 N. C., 743, 9 S. E. (2d), 501. After going to his job, he returned to the washroom to get his flashlight. He met a fellow employee in a narrow passageway near the entrance to the plant. This fellow employee, being in a hurry, sought to get by the deceased without delay. The deceased had stopped him in friendly fashion by placing his hands on his shoulders. Because of the narrow passageway, the fellow employee, in his haste, pushed the deceased too hard and caused him to fall backward and to hit his head on the concrete floor. Thus the accident may properly be denominated “an injury produced without the design or expectation of the workman.” McNeely v. Asbestos Go., 206 N. 0., 568, 174 S. E., 509. Injury by accident implies a result produced by a fortuitous cause. Scott v. Ins. Go., 208 N. 0., 160, 179 S. E., 434. An “accident” within the meaning of the "Workmen’s Compensation Act has been defined “as an unlooked for and untoward event which is not.expected or designed by the person who suffers the injury.” Conrad- v. Foundry Go., 198 N. C., 723, 153 S. E., 266. The injury, therefore, was an “injury by accident.” Slade v. Hosiery Mills, 209 N. C., 823, 184 S. E., 844. Did the injury by accident which the deceased sustained arise out of and in the course of the employment? This is the crucial question in the ease. The words “out of” refer to the origin or cause of the accident, while the words “in the course of” have reference to the time, place and cir *768 cumstances under which, it occurred. Wilson v. Mooresville, 222 N. C., 283, 22 S. E. (2d), 907; Conrad v. Foundry Co., sufra. The finding that the injury by accident which the deceased sustained arose “out of” the employment is supported by a number of decisions, notably Bobbins v. Hosiery Mills, 220 N. C., 246, 17 S. E. (2d), 20, and cases there cited. The conclusion that it occurred “in the course of” the employment also finds support among the decisions. Hegler v. Cannon Mills, ante, 669. It was an ordinary risk of the business which the workman was required to assume at common law, but is now imposed on the-employer by the Workmen’s Compensation Act. Chambers v. Oil Co., 199 N. C., 28, 153 S. E., 594. The fact that the deceased was not actually engaged in the performance of his duties as watchman at the time of the injury would not perforce defeat plaintiff’s claim for compensation. Hopwood v. City of Pittsburgh, 152 Pa. Super., 398, 33 A. (2d), 658. He was on the premises of the defendant and at a place where he had a right to be. Boett-cher v. University of Rochester, 43 N. Y. S. (2d), 956. Both the deceased and Coggin had checked in for the day’s work. They were fellow employees. The evidence supports the finding that the injury by accident which the deceased sustained arose out of and in the course of the employment. -Hence, the factual determinations of the Commission are conclusive on appeal to the Superior Court and in this Court. Kearns v. Furniture Co., 222 N. C., 438, 23 S. E. (2d), 310. The result is an affirmance of the judgment below. Affirmed.