Callihan v. Board of Education of Robeson County

Seawell, J. There is plenary evidence to sustain the finding that Callihan came to his death from an injury by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment, and our review on that point can go no further. Blevins v. Teer, 220 N. C., 135, 16 S. E. (2d), 659; Miller v. Caudle, ibid., 308, 17 S. E. (2d), 487. It is stipulated that plaintiffs are dependents. The main controversy here is over the proper construction of Calli-han’s contract of employment. Does the fact that the ultimate source of two-thirds of the money expended by the local board in paying his salary is the State, or the State and the Federal Government, constitute the State a two-thirds employer, and is the remuneration paid in part by the State? The answer to this question is, however, unnecessary to a decision of the appeal of the local board. Section 22 of the School Machinery Act of 1939 purports to make the local unit — in this case, the Robeson County Board of Education — liable “for Workmen’s Compensation of school employees employed in connection with teaching vocational agriculture, home economies, trades and industrial vocational subjects, supported in part by State and Federal Funds, which liability shall cover the entire period of service of such employees.” The law is based *386 on the equitable principle that the fund provided for State-wide support of the public schools, most of which do not enjoy the privilege of vocational instruction as part of the curriculum, should not bear a burden more appropriate to a local enterprise, to which the State has given its aid. At any rate, the Legislature had the power to put liability on the local unit, and it has done so. In the face of this statute, the appeal of the Robeson County Board of Education is without merit. It appears from the record that vocational instruction in the schools fortunate enough to have that feature is maintained by a fund, one-third of which is raised by the local unit and two-thirds contributed by the State, of which one-half is a gift in aid by the Federal Government. The contract of employments purports to be “An Agreement Between County or Local Board and Teacher,” and the Industrial Commission so construed it. In view of the fact that the State did not undertake to pay Callihan anything as salary or remuneration, but merely agreed to furnish the St. Pauls School $1,496.00 in quarterly payments, “on the basis” of the salary the local board, by accepting Callihan’s offer, had agreed to pay, we think the construction placed on the various commitments evidenced by these related documents is reasonable, and we are in agreement with that view. We regard the attitude, and the relation, of the State toward local school enterprises seeking to afford vocational training as being very similar to that of the Federal Government toward the same project, resulting in a mere gift in aid. The fact that the State follows its investment with suitable supervision does not make it an employer. It does the same for the ninth month of school financed by local taxation. Under this construction the Robeson County Board of Education was the sole employer of Callihan and, while obtaining the funds in part from local taxation and in part from State and Federal contributions, paid his remuneration — a factual situation to which the endorsement on the policy of insurance does not apply, however pertinent it may be to other parts of section 22, relating to the liability of the State and local units where the salary of the teacher is partly paid by each. The judgment of the court below sustaining the award is Affirmed.