Wilson v. . Boyd Goforth, Inc.

ClaeKSON, J. The question involved: Did the court below commit error in signing the judgment sustaining the holding of the North Carolina Industrial Commission that the injury sustained was by accident *347 that arose out of and in the course of the employment of the plaintiff, as an employee of the defendant employer, within the meaning of the Workmen’s Compensation Act? We think not. The evidence in this case is to the effect: That Novella Wilson, a Negro boy, was working for his employer, Boyd & Goforth, Inc. He was working on a septic tank, rubbing on the wall. T. S. Ostwalt was foreman in charge of the work. One Gilbert, also an employee in another department, a white man who was intoxicated, came and sat down beside Ostwalt. About a minute after sitting there Ostwalt said something to Wilson, the Negro boy, “about putting water on the wall, telling him not to use so much water.” Gilbert got up and went over to the Negro and began to curse him. The Negro said nothing. Gilbert cursed him right on and came back to where Ostwalt, the boss, was sitting, picked up a claw-hammer and went to where the Negro was “and hit him on the hip with it.” The Negro came down off the scaffold and Gilbert came after him. The Negro ran and Gilbert picked up a rock and threw it at him. The Negro picked up a stick and Gilbert made him throw it down, and then the Negro ran and Gilbert got after him and threw a stick at him about six feet long. The Negro went back to work and Gilbert kept after him after he had gone back to work, and in the end, in trying to get away from Gilbert, the Negro fell off the ■edge of the tank and broke his leg. The Negro, Wilson, testified: “Q. Did the bossman say anything to Mr. Gilbert about hitting you? A. No, sir. “Q. Was your bossman there on the job when Mr. Gilbert hit you? A. Yes, sir; right there. “Q. And he didn’t say anything to Gilbert? A. No, sir.” Ostwalt, the boss, testified that he told Gilbert, the intoxicated man and the employee of the company in another department, to leave the Negro alone, but Ostwalt never took hold of Gilbert until after the injury to the Negro — Gilbert was cursing and pursuing the Negro three or four minutes. The Negro was under the direction and control of the boss of the corporation, and on duty. It was the bossman’s duty to use or exercise reasonable care, or the care of an ordinarily prudent man, to protect the Negro in his peaceful occupation. The Commission has found that “there is a causal connection between the plaintiff’s employment in this case and the injury he sustained.” We think there was evidence to support the finding, and this is binding on us. In Conrad v. Foundry Co., 198 N. C., 723 (726-7), is the following : “There must be some causal relation between the employment and the injury, but if the injury is one which, after the event, may be seen to have had its origin in the employment, it need not be shown that it is *348 one which, ought to' have been foreseen or expected. Baum v. Industrial Commission, 288 Ill., 516, 6 A. L. R., 1242. The decisions of various courts contain practical illustrations of the principle. For example, a claimant was foreman in a shoe factory; an employee, who had been repairing machines, approached the claimant in a dark room, placed his arms around the claimant’s neck and drew his head against a lead pencil which injured the claimant’s eye. Markell v. Daniel Green Felt Shoe Co., 221 N. Y., 493, 116 N. E., 1060. Likewise, an employee, while engaged in his work, was struck in the eye by a missile thrown by a fellow-servant. Leonbruno v. Champlain Silk Mills, 229 N. Y., 470, 13 A. L. R., 522. Again, a workman was injured in a quarrel with another over interference with his work. Pekin Cooperage Co. v. Industrial Commission, 285 Ill., 31, 120 N. E., 530. In these cases the 'injury was held to be by accident arising hut of’ the employment. Socha v. Cudahy Packing Co., 13 A. L. R. (Neb.), 513.” For the reasons given, the judgment of the court below is Affirmed.