Eller v. A. C. Lawrence Leather Co., 222 N.C. 23 (1942)

Sept. 23, 1942 · Supreme Court of North Carolina

222 N.C. 23

WILLIAM ELLER v. A. C. LAWRENCE LEATHER CO., et al.

(Filed 23 September, 1942.)

1. Master and Servant §§ 40d, 40e, 40f—

When on September 15, 1939, plaintiff while about his employer’s business, was struck on the back of the head by hides he was jerking- from hooks about 10 feet from the floor, and therefore had to stop work for a very short time, and as a result of said blow plaintiff contracted hemorrhagic pachymeningitis which has caused his total disability since 26 January, 1940, held, an injury by accident, arising out of and in the course of his employment within the meaning of the Workmen’s Compensation Act.

2. Master and Servant § 55d—

Findings of fact by the Industrial Commission, if supported by competent evidence, are conclusive on appeal.

Appeal by defendants from Gwyn, J., at January Term, 1942, of Haywood.

Proceeding by employee under Workmen’s Compensation Act to obtain compensation for injuries; opposed by employer and insurance carrier.

From the record and evidence adduced on the hearing, the Industrial Commission, in addition to the jurisdictional findings, made the following essential factual determinations:

1. Tbat the plaintiff employee, on or about 15 September, 1939, while jerking off two or three hides or “crops” of leather of a total weight of approximately 45 pounds, from hooks about 10 feet from the floor, was struck an unusually heavy blow on the back of his head by said leather, which staggered him and caused him to stop work for a very short time.

2. That the plaintiff employee has been, since he was disabled, and is at present time, suffering from hemorrhagic pachymeningitis, and that this condition is the direct cause of his disability.

3. That the hemorrhagic pachymeningitis from which the plaintiff is suffering was the result of the blow which the plaintiff received on the back of his head, while jerking hides or “crops” of leather from hooks, and specifically that this said blow or lick on the head was received by the plaintiff in the course of and out of his employment with the defendant employer.

4. That the plaintiff employee, on or about 15 September, 1939, sustained an injury by accident which arose out of and in the course of his employment with the defendant employer, and as a result therefrom the plaintiff has been totally disabled from 26 January, 1940, to the date of this hearing, and will continue to be totally disabled until such time as his condition materially improves.

Compensation was awarded, and the award was affirmed on appeal to the Superior Court. From this latter ruling, the defendants appeal, assigning errors.

Edwards •& Leaiherwood for plaintiff, appellee.

Morgan & Ward and Jones, Ward & Jones for defendants, appellants.

Stacy, C. J.

This is one of the border-line eases. It is not easy of decision. Procedural considerations may tip the beam in favor of affirmance. The findings of the Industrial Commission, when supported by competent evidence, are conclusive on appeal. Buchanan v. Highway Com., 217 N. C., 173, 7 S. E. (2d), 382; Carlton v. Bernhardt-Seagle Co., 210 N. C., 655, 188 S. E., 77. Likewise, the presumption against error is invoked by the plaintiff as an aid to his position. Cole v. R. R., 211 N. C., 591, 191 S. E., 353; Gold v. Kiker, 218 N. C., 204, 10 S. E. (2d), 650.

There is evidence to support the findings of the Commission. There is some pointing in the opposite direction. This conflict, however, belongs to the fact-finding body, and not to the appellate courts. Lassiter v. Tel. Co., 215 N. C., 227, 1 S. E. (2d), 542. Hemorrhagic pachymenin-gitis resulting in permanent disability and caused by a traumatic injury or blow on the head Avhich the employee sustained while about the employer’s business, may well be said to have arisen out of and in the course of tbe employment and properly attributed to tbe injury by accident. Tbis makes it compensable under oitr statute.

Tbe finding is that plaintiff sustained an injury by accident wbicb arose out of and in tbe course of bis employment, and that tbis traumatic injury naturally and proximately resulted in bis present disability. Smith v. Creamery Co., 217 N. C., 468, 8 S. E. (2d), 231. 'Tbe case is mueb stronger tban MacRae v. Unemployment Compensation Com., 217 N. C., 769, 9 S. E. (2d), 595, and Blassingame v. Asbestos Co., 217 N. C., 223, 7 S. E. (2d), 478, where awards of tbe Industrial Commission were upheld.

In Dove v. Alpena Hide & Leather Co., 198 Mich., 132, 164 N. W., 253, tbe widow of a deceased employee was held to be entitled to compensation where her husband’s death was caused by inhaling infected dust arising from bides as they were piled in a poorly ventilated bide bouse, tbe Court saying: “Tbe accidental feature of tbe case is that by chance tbe septic germ or germs were taken up by bis respiratory organs and carried into bis system, an occurrence wbicb tbe testimony shows probably did happen, but wbicb was unusual in tbe work at which be was engaged.” In tbe instant case, tbe injury by accident is much more pronounced under tbe findings of tbe Commission.

'Viewing tbe record in its entirety, tbe conclusion is reached that tbe judgment of tbe Superior Court should be upheld.

Affirmed.