N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-2

Section 97-2(6) requires an injury by accident to arise out of and in the course of employment to be compensable.

Laughter v. Midway Lumber Supply Company · filed 1998-11-16(6)

On 15 July 1994, plaintiff did not sustain an injury by accident or otherwise, arising out of and in the course of his employment with defendant-employer, resulting in an injury to his cervical spine, but rather the complaints plaintiff experienced subsequent to 25 July 1994 were the result of an altercation in which plaintiff was drinking heavily and fell on his back. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-2 (6).

An injury from a functional capacity evaluation required by the employer before an employee may return to work arises out of and in the course of employment.

Pittman v. International Paper Co. · filed 1999-02-02(6)

In this case, there is competent evidence that plaintiff was required to perform the FCE before he returned to work and therefore any injury which resulted from it arose out of and during the course of employment.

An injury during a temporary absence from a work station can arise out of and in the course of employment when the employee remains on the employer’s premises and the absence to assist a coworker has a causal connection to the employment.

Choate v. Sara Lee Products · filed 1999-04-20(6)

Under Bellamy, Gordon, and Guest, we find, therefore, that a causal connection existed and plaintiffs accident during a temporary absence from her work station arose out of and during the course of her employment.

An injury can arise out of and in the course of employment when an employee, despite instructions not to use equipment, performs a task benefiting and furthering the employer’s business.

Hunt v. Mega Force Staffing Services · filed 1999-11-17(6)

Regardless of the fact that defendant-employer had told plaintiff he should not use the forklift, at the time of the accident plaintiff was performing a task for the benefit of U.S. Cold Storage and therefore his employer. This task was also in furtherance of his employer's business. ... On 14 May 1997, plaintiff sustained a compensable injury by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment with defendant-employer. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-2 (6).

An injury by accident is compensable under § 97-2(6) only if it arises out of employment as well as occurring in the course of employment.

Boone v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (Sam's Club) · filed 2000-01-04(6)

On October 3, 1997, plaintiff sustained an injury by accident to multiple body parts which occurred as a result of an attack by a third party in the course of her employment with defendant-employer. However, plaintiff's injury is not compensable because it did not arise out of her employment. Robbins v. Nicholson , 281 N.C. 234 , 188 S.E.2d 350 (1972); N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-2 (6).

An injury involving an idiopathic fall arises out of employment under § 97-2(6) only if a risk attributable to the employment contributed to the fall.

Janney v. JW Jones Lumber Co., Inc. · filed 2001-08-07(6)

If an idiopathic condition played a role in the fall, plaintiff is entitled to compensation only if risks attributable to his employment contributed to the fall.

An injury sustained while performing a special errand for an employer arises out of employment under § 97-2(6).

Goodman v. Mountaire Farms · filed 2002-02-18(6)

Plaintiff herein suffered an injury by accident as defined in the Act. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-2 (6). Because plaintiff was on a special errand of his employer in that he had to bring the company van back to the employer at a particular time that was not his normal work time and to transport a necessary worker, the injury by accident arose out of his employment.

Under § 97-2(6), an assault arising from a personal relationship does not arise out of employment merely because a supervisor fails to call the police or let the employee leave after a threat.

Dildy v. MBW Investments, Inc. · filed 2002-08-06(6)

The fact that Braziel failed to call the police and refused to let plaintiff leave the store did not make the risk that Farmer would come back and assault plaintiff a risk arising out of the nature of the employment.

An injury during a special errand that directly benefits the employer may arise out of and in the course of employment, even when it occurs during travel to work.

Osmond v. Carolina Concrete Specialties · filed 2002-08-12(6)

However, there is an exception to this rule where an employee “is injured while performing a special duty or errand” which directly benefits the employer. ... Plaintiffs driving the dump truck to the work site directly benefitted the employer.

Section 97-2(6) requires a compensable injury to be caused by an accident arising out of and in the course of employment.

West v. Parker Motor Company · filed 2002-08-23(6)

For an injury to be compensable under the Workers' Compensation Act, the injury must be caused by an accident, sustained in the course of and arising out of the employment. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-2 (6); Hollar v. Furniture Co ., 48 N.C. App. 489 , 269 S.E.2d 667 (1980).

Section 97-2(6) does not cover an employee’s death on the employer’s premises when the employee was servicing a personal vehicle solely for personal reasons, contrary to a known company policy, rather than furthering the employer’s business.

Merrill v. Salem Nationalease Corp. · filed 2002-12-23(6)

Even though Sykes died on defendant's premises, the evidence presented, as to the time, place and circumstances of his death, does not support a showing that his death occurred in the course of his employment. At the time of Sykes' death he was not engaged in activities that were calculated to further, indirectly or directly, the defendant's business. He was engaged solely in a personal activity, the servicing of his personal vehicle, in direct contravention of a known company policy, which prohibits such activity on the defendant's premises. Therefore, Sykes did not sustain a compensable injury by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment on October 17, 1998.

An injury during travel contemplated as part of the assigned work can arise out of and in the course of employment, including travel to and from changing job sites.

Allen v. Inco, Inc. · filed 2003-02-11(6)

To be compensable under the Workers' Compensation Act, an injury must arise out of and in the course of employment. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-2 (6). ... When travel is contemplated as part of the work assigned, then an accident in travel is compensable.

An injury by accident may arise out of employment when work-related fatigue and driving altitude combine with a preexisting heart condition to cause the accident.

McCollum v. Atlas Van Lines · filed 2003-04-02(6)

However, the greater weight of the medical evidence shows that plaintiff's loss of consciousness and resulting accident were caused by a combination of plaintiff's preexisting heart condition, extreme fatigue and the altitude at which plaintiff was driving. Therefore, on August 18, 1999, plaintiff sustained an injury by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment with defendant-employer.

An employee sustains a compensable injury by accident arising out of and in the course of employment when she becomes ill from contaminated tea she left in an employer-maintained break room.

Taylor v. B. C. Moore Sons · filed 2003-05-15(6)

Plaintiff has proved by the greater weight of the evidence that her injury of January 29, 1996, when she ingested contaminated tea left in the break room, is causally related to her employment as it arose out of and was in the course of employment and is therefore compensable.

An assault on a truck driver can be an injury by accident arising out of and in the course of employment when the dispute grows out of the driver’s work on public roads.

Dodson v. DUBOSE STEEL, INC. · filed 2003-07-15(6)

Since Dodson's work primarily consisted of driving, and his workplace comprised public roads and highways, including the one upon which he was driving at the time of the merging incident, the findings also support the conclusion that the "assault upon Dodson [by Campbell's vehicle] was rooted in and grew out of his employment," and occurred in his workplace.

Section 97-2(6) does not treat an injury from workplace sexual assaults as arising out of employment merely because the assaults occurred in the course of employment.

Sisk v. Tar Heel Capital Corp. · filed 2003-10-24(6)

In the instant case, plaintiff has established that she sustained an injury by accident occurring in the course of her employment with defendant-employer, but she has failed to establish that her injury arose out of the employment because the sexual assaults are not deemed to be incident to or a natural and probable consequence of the employment under current law.

An injury suffered during reasonable preparations for an assigned job can arise out of and in the course of employment under § 97-2(6).

Ball v. Morgan Drive Away · filed 2004-01-06(6)

"Preliminary preparations by an employee, reasonably essential to the proper performance of some required task or service, is generally regarded as being within the scope of employment and any injury suffered while in the act of preparing to do a job is compensable." ... Plaintiff sustained a compensable injury by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment and as a direct result of a specific traumatic incident of the work assigned on March 30, 2000. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-2 (6).

A fatal workplace shooting qualifies as an injury by accident arising out of and in the course of employment when the dispute was at least partly work related, whether the shooting was intentional or accidental.

Estate of Forbes v. Kenneth T. Goodson Logging · filed 2004-03-03(6)

Regardless of whether the shooting was intentional or accidental, and regardless of the verdict in the criminal trial, decedent's death was causally related to his work with defendant-employer. ... On 26 September 2000, the decedent sustained an injury by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment with defendant-employer that resulted in his death.

An unexplained fall while an employee performs work duties may support a finding that the resulting injury arose out of employment when the evidence does not establish an idiopathic cause.

Hodges v. Equity Group · filed 2004-05-18(6)

Based upon this finding, the Commission could conclude Plaintiff’s fall and resulting injuries had a reasonable relationship to his employment thereby justifying the conclusion that the incident and injuries arose out of Plaintiff’s employment.

An injury sustained while an employee is on the employer’s premises to pick up a paycheck under an authorized employer policy arises out of and in the course of employment when the activity reasonably relates to employment and furthers the employer’s business.

Johnson v. Magnetti-Marelli USA · filed 2004-08-03(6)

While she was not scheduled to be at work on November 24, 1999, the action whereby plaintiff picked up her paycheck, an activity that she was authorized to undertake pursuant to an informal employer policy, reasonably related to her employment and in fact directly furthered the employers' business. Thus, plaintiff's injury arose out of and in the course of her employment.

An injury sustained while traveling to collect payroll checks for coworkers arises out of and in the course of employment when the trip performs a job function.

Walsh v. Hillcrest Foods · filed 2004-11-09(6)

On November 27, 2002 plaintiff was acting in the course of his employment with defendant-employer as he was traveling to Rock Hill. He was not on a personal mission but rather was performing one of the functions of his job. Consequently, he sustained an injury by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment with defendant-employer on that date.

Section 97-2(6) covers an employee’s slip and fall on the employer’s premises while going to an authorized work-related smoke break, even when she uses crutches with the employer’s permission.

McWhirter v. Phillips Staffing · filed 2004-12-28(6)

Plaintiff's slip and fall occurred when plaintiff was engaged in the performance of her work duties on defendant's premises and was attempting to undertake a work-related smoke break, an authorized activity. Plaintiff's slip and fall caused her resulting injuries. The fact that plaintiff was ambulating to this smoke break area by use of crutches, which she was given permission to use at work, does not remove the causal connection between plaintiff's slip and fall and her employment. ... Plaintiff sustained an injury by accident arising out of and in the course of her employment on October 16, 2001, resulting in a right hip fracture and necessary surgery on October 17, 2001. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-2 (6).

An injury while returning an employer-provided truck home after transporting workers arises out of and in the course of employment when the transportation is part of the employee’s job and any personal deviation has ended.

Hunt v. Carolina · filed 2005-01-03(6)

On October 4, 2002, plaintiff sustained a compensable injury by accident arising out of and in the scope and course of his employment with defendant-employer when he was involved in a motor vehicle accident while returning himself and his employer's truck to their usual place of abode. Although there was some evidence that plaintiff might have deviated from the course and scope of his employment and might have picked up his son from the son's grandmother's house en route, the greater weight of the evidence demonstrates that plaintiff had resumed travel upon the work-related route that he would have traveled had he not picked up his son when he was involved in the motor vehicle accident.

Section 97-2(6) requires an injury by accident to arise out of and in the course of employment; an injury sustained while driving home after completing work duties is not compensable.

Gillette v. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc. · filed 2005-01-18(6)

Under N.C.G.S. § 97-2(6) (2003), an injury by accident must arise out of and in the course of employment to be compensable under the Workers' Compensation Act. ... We have reviewed the record evidence and conclude that findings of fact sixteen and seventeen are supported by competent evidence. Furthermore, we conclude that the Commission's findings of fact support its conclusions of law.

Section 97-2(6) excludes injuries from an assault motivated by personal reasons unrelated to employment, even when the assault occurs at work.

Sisk v. Tar Heel Capital Corp. · filed 2004-10-19(6)

The Act provides compensation for injuries resulting only from accidents. Lawrence v. Mill, 265 N.C. 329, 330, 144 S.E.2d 3, 4 (1965); N.C. Gen.Stat. § 97-2(6) (2003). ... If the motive surrounding the assault is personal in nature and unrelated to the employment, resulting injuries are not covered by the Act. Robbins v. Nicholson, 281 N.C. 234, 238-39, 188 S.E.2d 350, 353-54 (1972). ... Instead, the evidence suggests his motive and actions were entirely personal in nature.

An injury while crossing the street to buy a road map for an assigned delivery arises out of and in the course of employment under subsection (6).

Lisica v. Beaufort Logistics Storage · filed 2005-01-21(6)

On October 3, 2002, plaintiff was transporting alcoholic beverages from Vermont to Pennsylvania per the instructions of Ron Toppin's dispatcher when he stopped his truck in New Jersey, got out, and crossed the street to get to a store in order to buy a road map to help him find his destination in Pennsylvania. ... On October 3, 2002, plaintiff suffered an injury by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-2 (6).

An injury on the employer’s premises is not compensable under § 97-2(6) when it occurs during an unreasonable incidental activity.

Halsey v. Hearthstone Enter. · filed 2005-03-02(6)

In order to be compensable, an injury must occur in the course and scope of plaintiff's employment. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-2 (6). In this case, plaintiff was playing softball, but was on the premises of defendant-employer. Although plaintiff may normally recover for an injury that occurs on an employer's premises, plaintiff may not recover under the Workers' Compensation Act for an injury occurring in the commission of an unreasonable incidental activity.

Section 97-2 requires a compensable injury to occur on the employer’s premises or while the employee carries out an employment task; an injury while coming to work in an uncontrolled common area is outside the course of employment unless an exception to the coming-and-going rule applies.

Williams v. Corestaff Svcs. · filed 2005-03-15(6)

Furthermore, an injury alone is insufficient to trigger entitlement to workers' compensation; the injury must have occurred on the employer's premises or while an employee was carrying out an employment task in furtherance of his or her duties as an employee. Moreover, plaintiff has failed to prove that she falls under an exception to the general "coming and going" rule of law applicable to employees traveling to or from work. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-2 ; Barham v. Food World, Inc. , 300 N.C. 329 , 266 S.E.2d 676 (1980); Deseth v. LensCrafters, Inc. , 160 N.C. App. 180 , 585 S.E.2d 264 (2003).

An injury during a special errand for the employer is compensable when the errand appreciably benefits the employer, even if the employee leaves work to attend to personal hygiene.

Morgan v. Cracker Barrel Restaurants · filed 2005-04-12(6)

Plaintiff suffered a compensable injury by accident arising out of and in the course and scope of her employment with defendant. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-2 (6). ... However, there is an exception to the general rule when the employee is on a special errand for the benefit of the employer. ... Plaintiff's errand appreciably benefited defendant.

Section 97-2(6) covers a fatal assault as an injury by accident arising out of employment when the assailant targets the worker because of the work he is performing.

Thomas v. Northwood Co./thomas Built Homes · filed 2005-05-20(6)

The shooting incident which led to the death of James C. Thomas arose out of his employment with the defendant-employer, as Spencer specifically went to the house in search of the carpenter, whom he believed to be rich. Since decedent was doing carpentry work at the home, Spencer targeted decedent, looking for money. The evidence shows that decedent was searched for money, and his company-owned truck and cell phone were stolen. As Spencer was drawn to decedent particularly because he was doing carpentry work, the murder was related to his employment and was not a random act of violence.

Section 97-2(6) treats a threatened assault between coworkers as an accident when it interrupts the work routine and introduces unusual conditions likely to produce unexpected consequences.

Skeens v. bridgestone/firestone · filed 2005-05-16(6)

The threatened assault by Mr. Richardson was an interruption of the work routine and an introduction of unusual conditions likely to result in unexpected consequences and therefore constituted an "accident" as defined by the Workers' Compensation Act.

An assault arises out of employment under § 97-2(6) when job duties expose the employee to an increased risk of assault in a sparsely occupied area of the workplace.

D'Aquisto v. Mission St. Joseph's Health System · filed 2005-07-05(6)

Moreover, the record shows competent evidence to support finding that Ms. D’Aquisto was at an “increased risk,” assaulted inside the hospital, carrying business records at the time, and by a man wearing scrubs who appeared to have legitimate business at the hospital. Accordingly, we hold that the full Commission properly concluded that the assault “arose out of’ her employment.

Section 97-2(6) requires an injury by accident arising out of and in the course of employment; a spider bite that occurred outside the workplace does not qualify.

Smith v. Mortex Corp. · filed 2005-08-16(6)

Plaintiff did not sustain an injury by accident arising out of and in the course of the employment on 29 July 2003. Accordingly, plaintiff is not entitled to compensation under the Workers' Compensation Act. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-2 (6).

Section 97-2(6) covers an assault as an injury by accident when the assault arises from a risk created by the employment, including the special risk faced by an identifiable police officer.

Rose v. City of Rocky Mount · filed 2005-09-29(6)

However, plaintiff's injuries resulted from an assault reasonably related to her employment as a police officer and not from the motor vehicle accident which preceded the assault. An assault is compensable if it arises from a risk created by the employment.

An injury does not arise out of and in the course of employment when the employee distinctly departs from work travel for personal reasons and the injury is not shown to stem from an employment-related risk.

Teodoro v. Incredible Maintenance, Inc. · filed 2005-10-27(6)

Since plaintiff was engaged in a distinct departure from his work-related travel for personal reasons on the morning of August 1, 2001, in violation of a specific order from his employer, and since the motives of the assault were not proven to have been reasonably related to a risk associated with his employment, the injuries he sustained when he was shot at his apartment complex did not arise out of and in the course of his employment with defendant-employer.

A fall after prolonged sitting required by work can be an injury by accident arising out of employment under § 97-2(6).

Boney-Barnhill v. Nash General Hospital · filed 2005-12-16(6)

Plaintiff's working condition which required her to sit for long periods of time created a natural and probable risk that her leg would cause a problem when she stood up and thus contributes to a fall. ... Plaintiff's right knee and vascular injuries were sustained as a result of the fall at work on September 24, 2002, which is an injury by accident that arose out of and in the course and scope of plaintiff's employment with defendant-employer.

Section 97-2(6) covers an injury caused when a coworker grabs an employee at work to ask her a question because the incident arises out of employment.

Davis v. Columbus County Schools · filed 2005-12-20(6)

Plaintiff was grabbed by a co-worker who wished to ask her a question, a situation which had its origin in the employment.

An employee’s motor vehicle accident while traveling to perform a duty for a patient is an injury by accident arising out of and in the course of employment under § 97-2(6).

Richardson v. Maxim healthcare/allegis Group · filed 2006-03-15(6)

The plaintiff sustained an injury by accident arising out of and in the course and scope of her employment with defendant-employer on May 16, 2001. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-2 (6).

An assault by a coworker arising from a dispute over how assigned work is to be performed can be an injury by accident arising out of and in the course of employment.

Diaz v. Precisionaire · filed 2006-07-27(6)

Plaintiff suffered an injury by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment on April 7, 2004, when Mr. Chavez attacked him at work. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-2 (6); Withers v. Black, 230 N.C. 428 , 53 S.E.2d 688 (1949). The injury arose from a dispute over the manner in which Defendant's assigned work was to be done.

A later injury that naturally flows from an injury arising out of and in the course of employment also arises out of the employment.

Everett v. Well Care & Nursing Services · filed 2006-11-21(6)

The Commission correctly cited that, where a second injury arises from an earlier injury and the primary injury arises out of and in the course of employment, every natural consequence that flows from the injury likewise arises out of the employment.

An injury during an employer-sponsored event arises out of and in the course of employment when the employee participates at the employer’s request and provides an appreciable benefit to the employer.

Knauf v. Easy Eddie's · filed 2007-01-10(6)

The greater weight of the evidence supports the conclusion that on November 1, 2003, plaintiff sustained an injury by accident to his right leg arising out of and in the course of his employment with defendant.

An injury caused by an employee’s horseplay can arise out of and in the course of employment when the employee is performing assigned duties for the employer.

Carranza v. Drywall · filed 2007-02-02(6)

This injury was the result of the horseplay of a 17 year old driver while performing his job duties. Plaintiff was still acting for the benefit of his employer at the time of the accident. ... On July 27, 2005, plaintiff sustained a compensable injury by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment which resulted in C5 quadriplegia. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-2 (6).

An injury during a commute can arise out of and in the course of employment when an employer pays an allowance covering the cost of transportation under the employment contract.

Wayne v. Encompass Services · filed 2007-05-31(6)

As a result, plaintiff's injury by accident also falls under the "contractual duty" exception to the "coming and going rule." Thus, on October 22, 2000, plaintiff sustained an injury by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment with defendant-employer.

Section 97-2(6) excludes an injury during optional, employer-sponsored recreation when the activity does not appreciably further the employer’s business or arise from employment duties.

Frost v. Salter Path Fire Rescue · filed 2007-07-30(6)

In order for an injury to be compensable under the Workers' Compensation Act, it must be the result of an accident arising out of an in the course of employment. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-2 (6). ... In the case at hand, plaintiff was invited, but not required, to operate a go-cart in conjunction with a purely voluntary Fun Day arranged as a matter of good will by defendants. Plaintiff was injured while engaged in activities incident thereto and such injury does not arise out of the employment.

An injury arises out of employment when an idiopathic condition combines with risks attributable to the employment to cause the injury.

Davis v. J. S. Myers, Inc. · filed 2007-09-19(6)

Where an idiopathic condition is the sole cause of an injury, the injury does not arise out of an accident; however, if an idiopathic condition combines with risks attributable to the employment to cause the injury, then the injury does arise out of the employment.

An injury by accident is compensable only if it arises out of and in the course of employment.

Floyd v. Executive Personnel Group · filed 2007-12-04(6)

In order to establish a right to compensation for an injury by accident, plaintiff must show that the injury resulted from an accident arising out of and in the course of the employment.

An injury caused by an outsider over a personal relationship does not arise out of employment merely because work provided the place or opportunity for the assault.

Simmons v. Caterpillar, Inc. · filed 2008-06-16(6)

Because plaintiff's injury resulted from a personal relationship and the incident involving Ms. Arizona was not created by or reasonably related to his employment, plaintiff did not sustain an injury by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment with defendant-employer on November 2, 2005. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-2 (6); Robbins v. Nicholson , supra; Harden v. Furniture Co. , supra; Dildy v. MBW Invs., Inc. , supra .

Section 97-2(6) covers an injury by accident arising out of and in the course of employment.

Gelderen v. Piedmont Piping Mech. Contracting · filed 2008-12-23(6)

On June 20, 2007, plaintiff sustained an injury by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment with defendant-employer. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-2 (6).

Section 97-2(6) covers a neck injury caused by a workplace accident when it arises out of and in the course of employment.

Bellamy v. Painting · filed 2009-01-22(6)

Plaintiff suffered an injury to his left upper extremity and neck arising out of and in the course of his employment with Defendant-Employer on July 20, 2006. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-2 (6).

Section 97-2(6) treats a fatal accident during reimbursed work travel as compensable when the employee was in the course of employment and the Pickrell presumption establishes the otherwise uncertain work connection.

Faulcon v. N.C. Admin. Office of the Courts · filed 2009-10-21(6)

Because the evidence of record, together with the Pickrell presumption, show that the Decedent's death was the result of an injury "by accident arising out of and in the course of the employment" pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-2 (6), it follows that the Decedent's May 2, 2006 death is compensable under the Workers' Compensation Act.

Under § 97-2(6), an accident at work caused solely by an employee’s idiopathic condition does not arise out of employment.

Haithcock v. Mother Murphy's Laboratories · filed 2009-12-10(6)

Although Plaintiff's November 3, 2006 fall was an accident which occurred in the course and scope of his employment, he failed to prove that he sustained a compensable injury arising out of his employment with Defendant-Employer. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-2 (6) (2008).

Section 97-2(6) requires an injury by accident to arise out of and in the course of employment for a workers’ compensation claim.

Carrick v. Motorsports · filed 2010-03-08(6)

Plaintiff's claim must be DENIED because his injuries are not the result of an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment by Employer-Defendant. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-2 (6).

Section 97-2(6) requires a claimant to establish both that an accidental injury arose out of employment and that it occurred in the course of employment.

Forney v. Packaging · filed 2010-03-09(6)

While often interrelated, the concepts "arising out of" and "in the course of" the employment are distinct requirements, and a claimant must establish both to receive compensation.

An injury from an idiopathic fall does not arise out of employment under § 97-2(6) when the employment does not increase the risk of injury from the fall.

Watkins v. TROGDON MASONRY, INC. · filed 2010-04-06(6)

Because the facts fully support the Commission’s conclusion that “plaintiff’s fall on 8 May 2007 was due to an idiopathic condition or physical infirmity which caused his leg to give way . . . plaintiff’s injuries . . . did not result from an accident arising out of his employment with defendant,” Plaintiff’s assignment of error as to this conclusion of law is without merit.

Section 97-2(6) requires an accidental injury both to arise out of employment and to occur in the course of employment; an injury sustained while repairing a mobile home the worker owned for resale does not qualify.

Whitmore v. Campbell · filed 2010-06-28(6)

Based upon the greater weight of the evidence, when plaintiff fell from the roof of the 1972 mobile home he was the sole owner of that mobile home and was working in furtherance of his being able to sell the mobile home. Accordingly, plaintiff's injuries did not arise out of or in the course of his employment with defendant CYB Staffing and he is not eligible for benefits under the North Carolina Workers' Compensation Act.

Section 97-2(6) covers an accident arising out of and in the course of employment, including a work-trip deviation that benefits the employer’s client.

Dumuje v. Ambleside, Inc. · filed 2010-07-01(6)

The greater weight of the evidence is that Plaintiff's motor vehicle accident on January 7, 2007 arose out of and in the course of her employment with Defendant-Employer and was compensable under the N.C. Workers' Compensation Act.

Section 97-2(6) excludes an injury sustained while an employee approaches work outside the employer’s premises and before beginning job duties.

Cardwell v. Jenkins Cleaners, Inc. · filed 2010-08-03(6)

Thus, the Commission's findings show that employee was not on her employer's premises and had not yet reached the back door to unlock it when she slipped and fell. Therefore, the injury was not "arising out of and in the course of employment" and was not compensable.

Section 97-2(6) covers a compensable injury by accident arising out of and in the course of employment.

Gross v. Concept Steel · filed 2010-11-16(6)

On July 25, 2005, Plaintiff sustained a compensable injury by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment with Defendant-Employer. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-2 (6).

Section 97-2(6) covers an accident after an employee reports to work and returns to a vehicle in the employer’s parking lot to retrieve keys needed for work and refreshments for personal comfort.

Warwick v. N.C. Department of Correction · filed 2011-01-31(6)

In the instant case, plaintiff was acting for the benefit of defendant when she retrieved her keys and her beverages from her personal vehicle. Plaintiff needed her keys in order to perform her job duties. Furthermore, in retrieving her beverages from her vehicle, plaintiff was performing a personal errand for her comfort that indirectly benefitted the employer. As such, plaintiff's accident arose out of and in the course of her employment. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-2 (6); Harless v. Flynn , 1 N.C. App. 448 , 162 S.E.2d 47 (1968); Dayal v. Provident Life and Acc. Ins. Co. , 71 N.C. App. 131 , 321 S.E.2d 452 (1984).

An automobile accident while an employee travels to a store she manages can qualify as an injury by accident arising out of and in the course of employment.

Keeton v. Circle K · filed 2011-03-10(6)

On June 9, 2009, plaintiff sustained an injury by accident arising out of and in the course of employment with defendant-employer when she was involved in an automobile accident while traveling to a store she managed for defendant-employer. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-2 (6).

An injury from voluntary basketball during an unpaid lunch break does not arise out of or in the course of employment when the activity does not further the employer’s business.

Servance v. Wikoff Color Corp. · filed 2011-07-11(6)

Based upon the totality of the credible evidence of record, the injuries Decedent sustained on February 18, 2008 were not the result of an injury by accident arising out of or in the course of his employment with Defendant-Employer. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-2 (6); See, Troxler v. Charter Mandala Center , 89 N.C. App. 268 , 365 S.E.2d 665 (1988).

An injury sustained while a home-health nurse loads medical equipment for a scheduled patient visit arises out of and in the course of employment when that task is an essential part of her job.

Washburn v. Gentiva Health Services · filed 2011-09-13(6)

At the time of her fall on February 7, 2010, Plaintiff's job for Defendant-Employer was to deliver nursing services to patients at their homes. Plaintiff had a scheduled patient visit and was loading nursing equipment, supplies and other items from her residence into her vehicle for this patient visit, an activity that was an essential component of her employment with Defendant-Employer. The performance of this duty by Plaintiff on February 7, 2010, was for the benefit of Defendant-Employer and was peculiar to and incidental to her employment for Defendant-Employer. ... Plaintiff's February 7, 2010 injury by accident arose out of and occurred while in the course of her employment with Defendant-Employer and the consequences thereof are compensable.

Section 97-2(6) requires determining whether an injury arose from activity serving or incidental to the employee’s work; reckless operation of equipment alone does not establish that the injury fell outside employment.

Weaver v. Dedmon · filed 2017-05-16(6)

These findings do not address whether Mr. Weaver was operating the forklift in furtherance of—or incidental to—his job duties and his employer’s interest. These findings appear to impute negligence on behalf of the employee, indicating that the Commission reached its decision under a misapprehension of law.

Section 97-2(6) covers an injury from a work-related altercation on employer-paid premises when the altercation arises from a work-related conversation.

Driskell v. Summit Contracting Grp., Inc. · filed 2018-06-28(6)

The NCWCA covers those "injur[ies] [caused] by accident arising out of and in the course of the employment." N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-2(6) (2017). The undisputed evidence presented at trial indicates the altercation was work-related; it occurred on premises paid for by Defendant, and it arose out of a work-related conversation.

Section 97-2(6) requires an accidental injury to occur in the course of employment and arise out of an employment-related risk; a traveling employee’s injury while retrieving laundry is not compensable absent a showing that doing laundry furthered the employer’s business.

McSwain v. Indus. Com. Sales & Serv. · filed 2020-04-07(6)

To qualify for benefits under the Workers’ Compensation Act (the “Act”), an injury which occurs by accident must occur in the course of employment and arise out of employment. See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-2(6) (2019). As explained below, an employee is deemed to be “in the course of” his employment when he is on the job, that is, doing something which directly or indirectly benefits his employer. And an injury which occurs in the course of employment is deemed to “arise out of” his employment if his employment exposed him to an increased risk of injury.

An injury under § 97-2(6) must arise out of employment as well as occur in its course; a coworker’s sexual assault driven by a personal motive did not arise out of the injured employee’s work.

Alderete v. Sunbelt Furniture Xpress · filed 2024-05-21(6)

We conclude that plaintiff’s cause of action does not come within the provisions of the Act because, although plaintiff’s injury was an “accident”—for the purposes of the Act—and it occurred in the course of employment, plaintiff’s injury did not arise out of his employment with defendant.

Section 97-2(f) treats an injury caused by a coworker’s assault over how to do the work as arising out of employment.

Withers v. Black · filed 1949-05-25(f)

It necessarily follows that the award made against Reid by the Industrial Commission on the basis of this finding conforms to well considered decisions of this Court holding that where a workman is injured by a fellow employee because of a dispute about the manner of doing the work he is employed to do, the accident to the injured workman grows out of the employment and is compensable.

Section 97-2(f) requires an injury to arise out of employment; being on the employer’s premises during lunch does not suffice without a causal connection to the work.

Matthews v. Carolina Standard Corporation · filed 1950-06-09(f)

True he was on the premises of his employer at the time but under no duty. According to the evidence presented and the findings of the Commission the injury did not result from a hazard incident to his employment.

An injury arises out of employment only if a hazard of the employment contributes to it; an injury caused solely by an employee’s epileptic seizure is not compensable.

Vause v. Vause Farm Equipment Co. · filed 1951-02-02(f)

We perceive in this evidence no showing that any hazard of the employment contributed in any degree to the unfortunate occurrence. The evidence affirmatively shows that it was solely the force of his unfortunate seizure that moved him from his position of safety to his injury.

Section 97-2(f) covers an injury by accident arising out of and in the course of employment; an employee’s warning about a hot wire followed by his fall near it can support that finding.

Blalock v. City of Durham · filed 1956-05-23(f)

This evidence is sufficient to support the finding the deceased employee sustained an injury by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment.

Section 97-2(f) requires a compensable accident to arise out of employment, which concerns its cause, and occur in the course of employment, which concerns its time, place, and circumstances.

Zimmerman Ex Rel. Zimmerman v. Elizabeth City Freezer Locker · filed 1956-10-31(f)

Compensation for injuries under our Workmen’s Compensation Act requires that the accident be one “arising out of and in the course of the employment.” G.S. 97-2 (f). The words “out of” refer to the cause of the accident, while the words “in the course of” have reference to the time, place and circumstances under which it occurred.

An accidental injury sustained while an employee walks from an employer-provided parking lot to the work area on the employer’s premises can arise out of and in the course of employment.

Davis v. Devil Dog Manufacturing Company · filed 1959-02-25(f)

It seems clear that claimant's going from this parking lot to her working area, all on her employer’s premises, was a necessary incident to her employment, and there was a causal connection between her employment .and the injury she received with the result that the injury by accident she suffered arose out of and in the course of her employment.

An injury arises out of employment only when the employment contributes to its cause; a fall caused solely by a personal physical condition does not qualify.

Cole v. GUILFORD COUNTY AND HARTFORD ACC. & IND. CO. · filed 1963-06-14(6)

The words “out of,” refer to the origin or cause of the accident and the words “in the course of,” to the time, place and circumstances under which it occurred. ... The fact that she was serving on the jury at the time had nothing to do with either the fall or its consequences.

Section 97-2(6) permits compensation for an unexplained fall during work when the circumstances support a finding that the injury arose out of the employment.

Taylor v. Twin City Club · filed 1963-11-06(6)

To be compensable under the Workmen’s Compensation Act an injury must result from an accident arising out of and in the course of the employment. G.S. 97-2(6). ... We 'have held that where an employee, while -about his work, suffers an injury in the ordinary course of his employment, the cause of which is not explained, but which is a natural and probable result of a risk thereof, and the Commission find® .from all of the attendant facts and circumstances that the injury arose out of the employment, 'an award will be sustained.

Section 97-2(f) requires an injury to arise from the employee’s work or service; the risk must be incidental to employment.

Bell v. Dewey Bros. · filed 1952-10-08(f)

“Arising out of” means arising out of the work the employee is to do, or out of the service he is to perform. The risk must be incidental to the employment.

Section 97-2(f) requires an injury both to arise out of and to occur in the course of employment; the two conditions are distinct.

Sweatt v. Rutherford County Board of Education · filed 1953-05-06(f)

And, in interpreting and applying the meaning of the expression, “arising out of and in the course of the employment,” as it appears in the Workmen’s Compensation Act, it has been uniformly held by this Court that the phrases “arising out of” and “in the course of” are not synonymous but involve two ideas and impose a double condition, both of which must be satisfied in order to bring a case within the Act.

An injury is compensable under § 97-2(6) only when an accident arises out of and in the course of employment, with a causal relation between the employment and the injury.

Perry v. American Bakeries Company · filed 1964-06-12(6)

This Court, in compliance with the requirement of the statute, G.S. 97-2(6), that injury to be compensable must result from accident arising out of and in the course of the employment, has adhered to the rule of “causal relation” between employment and injury.

An accidental injury arises out of employment when there is some causal connection between the employment and the injury; the injury need not be foreseeable or caused solely by the employment.

Robbins v. Nicholson · filed 1971-05-04(6)

G.S. 97-2(6) provides that an injury to be compensable must be an injury caused by accident “arising out of and in the course of the employment.” ... In North Carolina there is no requirement that the injury should be foreseen if it resulted from the employment nor does the employment have to be the “sole” cause of the injury; it is sufficient if there is “some” causal connection between the employment and the injury.

Section 97-2(6) requires a compensable injury to result from an accident arising out of and in the course of employment.

Robinson v. North Carolina State Highway Commission · filed 1971-12-15(6)

In order to recover for an injury under Workmen’s Compensation Laws in North Carolina, the claimant must *211prove that the injury was the result of an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. G.S. 97-2(6). ... We hold that the Industrial Commission did not err in its conclusion that the death of Roberts and injury to Robinson resulted from an accident arising out of and in the course of their employment.

An assault arising from a personal motive is not compensable unless the nature of the employment created the risk of attack.

Robbins v. Nicholson · filed 1972-05-10(6)

A fortiori, when the moving cause of an assault upon an employee by a third person is personal, or the circumstances surrounding the assault furnish no basis for a reasonable inference that the nature of the employment created the risk of such an attack, the injury is not compensable.

An injury arises out of employment only when it originates in a risk incidental to the work; the ordinary risk of choking while eating does not qualify.

Bartlett v. Duke University · filed 1973-11-14(6)

To have its origin in the employment an injury must come from a risk which might have been contemplated by a reasonable person familiar with the whole situation as incidental to the service when he entered the employment. ... Applying the foregoing test to the facts of this case, we hold that there was no causal relation between Bartlett’s employment and his aspiration of the kebab.

Section 97-2(6) covers an injury from a reasonable, employer-approved personal activity performed while the employee is required to remain on duty, when the activity’s risk is a risk of the employment.

Lee v. F. M. Henderson & Associates · filed 1973-11-14(6)

In affirming the decision of the Court of Appeals, we simply hold that, under the circumstances of the present case, plaintiff’s use of his employer’s electric saw and “scrap” material during the Saturday morning lull was a reasonable activity and that the risk inherent in such activity was a risk of the employment.

An injury arises out of employment when an employee required to remain on duty engages in a reasonable activity there and is injured by a risk inherent in that activity.

Watkins v. City of Wilmington · filed 1976-02-18(6)

Under the circumstances of the present case, we hold that plaintiff’s cleaning of the oil breather cap from a co-employee’s car during his lunch period was a reasonable activity and that the risk inherent in such activity was a risk of the employment.

Section 97-2(6) covers an injury from a reasonable activity during a required period at work when the activity’s risk is a risk of employment.

Watkins v. City of Wilmington · filed 1976-06-17(6)

We hold, therefore, that plaintiff’s act in assisting in the cleaning of the oil breather cap from a fellow employee’s car during the lunch period was a reasonable activity, and that the risk inherent in such activity was a risk of the employment.

Section 97-2(6) covers a fatal assault when the employee’s work exposed her to the risk and the assault began as she went to her car in the workplace parking lot.

Gallimore v. Marilyn's Shoes · filed 1976-09-15(6)

In determining if an injury is covered under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, the only injury compensable is an “ . . . injury by accident arising out of and in the course of employment.” G.S. 97-2(6). ... In keeping with this rule of liberal construction, this Court is of the opinion that the injury resulting in death in this case arose out of and in the course of the employment.

Section 97-2 requires proof that an accidental injury arose out of and in the course of employment; evidence of duties the employee might have been performing does not establish that she was performing them when injured.

Franklin v. Wilson County Board of Education · filed 1976-05-19(6)

To be awarded compensation under the Workman’s Compensation Act, the plaintiff has the burden of showing that deceased’s injury and resulting death were the result of an accident which arose out of and in the course of deceased’s employment. ... Such evidence, under the circumstances of this case, is not sufficient to support a finding by the Commission that the deceased was performing one of the duties of her employment at the time of the accident.

Under § 97-2(6), an injury from a hazard shared by the public does not arise out of employment without a sufficient causal connection to the work.

Smith v. Dacotah Cotton Mills, Inc. · filed 1976-12-15(6)

The cement block was a hazard to which all persons who used the street were exposed. The risk was not shown to be a natural incident of plaintiff’s employment nor was a sufficient causal connection between the accident and employment shown for the accident to arise out of the employment. We think the commission properly concluded that the injury by accident sustained by plaintiff did not arise out of her employment.

An injury arises out of employment when a risk created by the nature of the work is a contributing cause of the injury.

Gallimore v. Marilyn's Shoes · filed 1977-04-14(6)

From these cases, the controlling test of whether an injury “arises out of” the employment is whether the injury is a natural and probable consequence of the nature of the employment. A contributing proximate cause of the injury must be a risk to which the employee is exposed because of the nature of the employment.

Section 97-2(6) requires an accident both to arise out of employment and to occur in the course of employment.

Martin v. Bonclarken Assembly · filed 1978-03-07(6)

The phrases “arising out of” and “in the course of” are not synonymous and both must be fulfilled in order for the plaintiffs to recover.

An accident arises out of employment when the employee’s duties expose them to a risk of injury at a place where those duties require them to be.

Hensley v. Caswell Action Committee, Inc. · filed 1978-03-07(6)

An accident arises out of employment if there exists a causal relation between the accident and the employment. There is such a causal relationship when the duties of the employment require the employee to be in a place at which he is exposed to a risk of injury to which he would not otherwise be subject and, while there, he is injured by an accident due to the peculiar hazard of that location.

Section 97-2(6) requires a compensable injury to arise from a job-created condition or risk and to occur in the time, place and circumstances of employment.

Warren v. City of Wilmington · filed 1979-11-20(6)

For a compensable injury to exist, the two related but different ideas embodied in the phrase “arising out of and in the course of employment” must be present on the facts of the particular case. “Arising out of” the employment is construed to require that the injury be incurred because of a condition or risk created by the job. There must be a causal relation between the job and the injury. “In the course of the employment” is construed to refer to the time, place and circumstances under which the accident occurs.

Work done at the employer’s direction and for its benefit can be in the course of employment even when performed off the employer’s premises after regular working hours.

Brown v. Jim Brown's Service Station · filed 1980-02-19(6)

If the employee is doing work at the direction and for the benefit of the employer, the time and place of work are for the benefit of the employer and a part of the employment of the employee. This satisfies the condition of time and place although the work is done off the premises of the employer and after regular working hours.

Section 97-2(6) covers an accidental injury arising out of and in the course of employment when the employee is performing an authorized activity calculated to further the employer’s business.

Long v. Asphalt Paving Co. of Greensboro · filed 1980-07-15(6)

Pursuant to G.S. 97-2 (6), a compensable injury under the North Carolina Workers’ Compensation Act must be one “arising out of and in the course of the employment.” An accident is said to arise out of and in the course of the employment when it occurs while the employee is engaged in some activity or duty which he is authorized to undertake and which is calculated to further, directly or indirectly, the employer’s business.

Section 97-2(6) does not treat an outsider’s assault motivated by a personal relationship as arising out of employment merely because the employer knew of prior threats.

Hemric v. Reed & Prince Manufacturing Co. · filed 1981-10-20(6)

Where the employee is injured in the course of employment by an outsider because of hate, jealousy, or revenge based on a personal relationship, the fact that the employer has knowledge of prior threats of death or bodily harm does not result in the injury’s arising out of the employment.

Section 97-2(6) permits an unexpected assault to qualify as an accident when it arises out of and in the course of employment.

Daniels v. Swofford · filed 1982-02-02(6)

An unexpected assault, therefore, may be considered an accident despite its characterization as an intentional act. We conclude that the alleged assault in the present action was an accident as defined by the Workers’ Compensation Act. ... We, therefore, further conclude that the alleged assault arose out of and in the course of plaintiff’s employment.

An unexplained death at work can support an inference that the death arose out of employment, even when the employee was shot by a third party.

Harris v. Henry's Auto Parts, Inc. · filed 1982-05-04(6)

Because he was found dead on the premises of his employment at a time when he should have been there, we indulge a presumption or inference that his death arose out of the employment. We do so even though there is evidence that he was shot by ambush and that he had been shot in the past by a girlfriend.

An employee’s violation of a prior order does not break the connection between an injury and employment when the act is reasonably related to the assigned task.

Hoyle v. Isenhour Brick & Tile Co. · filed 1982-07-13(6)

We are therefore of the opinion that employee’s election to disobey a prior given order did not break the causal connection between his employment and his fatal injury if the disobedient act was reasonably related to the accomplishment of the task for which he was hired.

Section 97-2(6) covers an employee-driver’s injury while making a necessary repair after taking on a load when the repair helps complete the scheduled delivery.

Hoffman v. Ryder Truck Lines, Inc. · filed 1982-08-03(6)

We hold that plaintiff’s performance of a necessary repair, after he was “under load,” was within the scope of his employment as a truck driver for defendant because it was an act preparatory or incidental to the fulfillment of his duty to make the scheduled delivery within the allotted time.

Section 97-2(6) covers an accidental injury arising out of and in the course of employment when the employee remains on duty while carrying out required preparations for another call.

Powers v. Lady's Funeral Home · filed 1982-10-05(6)

We hold that while Mr. Powers’ journey qualified as a special errand on this particular occasion, his duties did not end at the conclusion of his journey. After embalming a body, claimant was required by his employer to shower and change his clothes in preparation for another call.

Section 97-2(6) covers an accidental injury arising out of and in the course of employment when the injury is causally connected to work and occurs while the employee is performing authorized work activities.

Pittman v. Twin City Laundry & Cleaners · filed 1983-04-05(6)

To be compensable, injuries must be “by accident arising out of and in the course of the employment.” G.S. 97-2(6). ... The evidence in the present case was sufficient to support the Commission’s findings and conclusion that Pittman received an injury by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment.

Under § 97-2(6), disobeying an employer’s instruction does not necessarily break the causal connection between employment and injury when the instruction was not strictly followed.

Patterson v. Gaston County · filed 1983-06-07(6)

The basic issue before us is whether decedent’s death was the result of (1) an accident, (2) arising out of and (3) in the course of employment. G.S. 97-2(6). ... We do not agree with defendants’ argument that the causal connection between decedent’s employment and injury was broken because he disobeyed his employer’s directive not to ride on the dragpan. The evidence reveals that, although the employees, including decedent, had been warned orally not to ride *547on the dragpans, the rule was not strictly followed.

An injury during work travel is compensable when the trip has a reasonable relationship to the employment and benefits the employer to an appreciable extent.

Pollock v. Reeves Bros., Inc. · filed 1985-04-02(6)

The accident was “fairly traceable to the employment as a contributing cause” and the trip had some reasonable relationship to Beckwith’s employment with Reeves; thus Beckwith was acting for the benefit of Reeves to an appreciable extent.

An injury arises out of employment when it originates in a risk created by the workplace rather than one common to the public at large.

Williams v. Hydro Print, Inc. · filed 1983-11-15(6)

The Industrial Commission correctly concluded that plaintiffs injury arose out of his employment, that is, had its origin in an employment-connected risk as opposed to one common to the public at large.

An injury in a parking area outside the employer’s control does not arise out of and in the course of employment when the employee is performing no work duties and no exception to the premises rule applies.

Glassco v. BELK-TYLER CO. OF GOLDSBORO · filed 1984-06-19(6)

Since plaintiff has not shown she sustained her injury by accident on her employer’s premises, or that she is entitled to compensation under an exception to the premises rule, we hold the Commission properly found and concluded that the plaintiff did not sustain an injury by accident arising out of and in the course of employment, and therefore did not qualify for compensation under the Workers’ Compensation Act.

Section 97-2(6) excludes an emotional injury from workplace sexual harassment when the harm does not arise out of the employment.

Hogan v. Forsyth Country Club Co. · filed 1986-03-04(6)

The Act defines injury as “injury by accident arising out of and in the course of the employment.” G.S. 97-2(6). ... Sexual harassment is not a risk to which an employee is exposed because of the nature of the employment but is a risk to which the employee could be equally exposed outside the employment. ... Therefore, Cornatzer’s claim is neither covered nor barred by the Act.

An injury arises out of and in the course of employment when an employee performs work directed by the employer that furthers the employer’s business, even if the work is outside the employee’s usual duties.

Murray v. Biggerstaff · filed 1986-06-17(6)

A compensable injury under the Act is one that arises out of and in the course of employment. G.S. 97-2(6). ... When the accident and resulting injury occurred, plaintiff was engaged in an activity which he was authorized and directed to undertake by his employer. The activity indirectly benefited and furthered his employer’s business. The injury was, therefore, a direct result of plaintiffs employment. Accordingly, plaintiffs injury by accident arose out of and in the course of his employment.

Section 97-2(6) requires an accidental injury to arise out of and occur in the course of employment for the employee to receive compensation.

Fortner v. J. K. Holding Co. · filed 1986-10-21(6)

In order for an injured employee to be eligible for workers’ compensation benefits for accidental injury, the claimant must prove that the injury arose out of the employment and that it occurred in the course of the employment. ... Applying these well established principles to the facts of the present case, it is apparent that plaintiffs unfortunate accident neither arose out of her employment nor occurred in the course thereof.

Section 97-2(6) requires an accidental injury to arise out of and occur in the course of employment; travel serving a business purpose can qualify even when it also serves personal purposes.

McBride v. Peony Corp. · filed 1987-02-03(6)

To receive benefits under workers’ compensation for accidental injury, an injured employee must prove that the injury arose out of the employment and that it occurred in the course of employment. ... Getting all employees together to celebrate birthdays and cement relationships is a business purpose. Thus, while there were also personal reasons for the trip, the resulting injury is compensable.

Section 97-2(6) requires an accidental injury to arise out of and in the course of employment; an injury during an act solely for the employee’s own benefit does not qualify.

Fortner v. J. K. Holding Co. · filed 1987-06-02(6)

In order for an employee to be entitled to workers’ compensation benefits for accidental injury, the employee must prove that the accident arose out of and in the course of the employment. N.C.G.S. § 97-2(6) (1985). ... Plaintiff at that point was acting solely for her own benefit. ... Accordingly, the Commission did not err in finding that plaintiffs accident did not arise out of and in the course of her employment.

Section 97-2(6)'s requirement that an injury arise out of employment can cover an employee's reasonable emergency assistance to a stranger when the employment placed the employee in that position of risk.

Roberts v. Burlington Industries, Inc. · filed 1987-06-16(6)

For an injury to be compensable under the North Carolina Workers’ Compensation Act, the injury must be the result of an accident arising out of and in the course of the employment. G.S. 97-2(6). ... We hold that Mr. Roberts’ employment placed him in the position of increased risk, considering that his actions were reasonable, and that by being placed at such risk by his employment, his injuries arose out of that employment.

An employee’s purely altruistic aid to a stranger does not arise out of employment when it provides no actual benefit to the employer.

Roberts v. Burlington Industries, Inc. · filed 1988-02-03(6)

We now hold that such purely altruistic actions, with no actual benefit to the employer, do not arise out of the employment.

An injury does not arise out of employment merely because it occurs on the employer’s premises.

Forsythe v. Inco · filed 1989-10-03(6)

The fact that the accident occurred on the employer’s premises is not sufficient, in and of itself, to warrant a finding that Ms. Forsythe’s injury arose out of her employment.

Under § 97-2(6), an employee’s directed return to collect a paycheck arises out of employment, but an injury sustained while searching elsewhere for the supervisor falls outside the course of employment.

Byrd v. George W. Kane, Inc. · filed 1988-12-30(6)

Applying this law to the facts of the case, we conclude that the plaintiffs return to the workplace, as directed by his supervisor, for the purpose of obtaining his paycheck, arose out of the employment relationship. However, we further conclude that based upon the test set forth in Fortner and Powers, this accident did not arise in the course of the employment. Plaintiffs injuries did not occur at a place where his duties were calculated to take him and under circumstances in which plaintiff was performing duties he was authorized to undertake. Plaintiffs only remaining duty was to return to his supervisor’s trailer to pick up his paycheck. Plaintiffs injuries, as a result of his decision to go off in search of his supervisor with the resulting fall through the roof, did not occur in the course of his employment.

Section 97-2(6) requires an injury to arise out of and occur in the course of employment; employer-provided housing alone does not establish that connection for an injury after work.

Jauregui v. Carolina Vegetables · filed 1993-11-16(6)

In this case, plaintiff was not continuously on call, and, although the nature of his employment arguably required that he live on the premises, at the time of his injury he was not on call. Therefore, the connection between plaintiff’s employment and his injury is not sufficient to establish that the injury arose out of and in the course of plaintiff’s employment.

An accident may arise out of employment even if an employee’s stroke caused it, provided the employee was in the course of employment at the time.

Murray v. Associated Insurers, Inc. · filed 1994-05-03(6)

However, even assuming arguendo that decedent’s stroke did cause the accident, under Allred, supra, decedent’s accident arose out of his employment if decedent was in the course of his employment at the time of the accident. Accordingly, if the Commission on remand determines that decedent was in the course of his employment at the time of the accident, we hold that decedent’s accident arose out of his employment.

Section 97-2 excludes an injury sustained during a purely personal trip to a co-worker's home for dinner because it does not arise out of and in the course of employment.

Williams v. Mitchener Chevrolet, Inc. · filed 1995-02-10(6)

In this case, Mr. Wimberly was engaged in a personal mission at the time of the fatal accident, to wit, going to the home of a co-worker after work to share dinner. Therefore, even if Mr. Wimberly was deemed to be acting in the course of his employment during the trip to his home in Angier, after Mr. Wimberly passed Angier and proceeded to Bunn Level, he was proceeding on a purely personal errand. Therefore, Mr. Wimberly did not sustain an injury arising out of and in the course of his employment with defendant-employer. N.C.G.S. § 97-2.

An injury while an employee returns from an authorized break to resume work can arise out of and in the course of employment even if the employee is not yet performing job duties.

Horton v. University of N.C., Chapel Hill · filed 1995-04-04(6)

On October 5, 1993 plaintiff sustained an injury by accident arising out of and in the course of her employment with defendant when she slipped and fell in the hallway on which she works every day at the conclusion of her customary and authorized 15 minute break as she returned her personal items to her janitor closet to resume work. N.C.G.S. § 97-2(6). The fact that plaintiff was not engaged in the actual performance of the duties of her job does not preclude the accident from being one arising out of the course of her employment.

An accident is compensable under § 97-2(6) when it arises out of and in the course of employment.

Cauble v. Soft-Play Inc. · filed 1995-09-26(6)

Under the Workers' Compensation Act, in order to be compensable, an accident must arise out of and in the course of the employment.

An injury arises out of employment when its cause is connected to the work; whether it occurs in the course of employment depends on its time, place, and circumstances.

Needham v. Olsten Corporation · filed 1995-10-10(6)

As used in the Act, the phrase "arising out of the employment" refers to the origin or cause of the accidental injury, while the words "in the course of the employment" refers to the time, place, and circumstances under which an accidental injury occurs.

An injury arises out of and in the course of employment when the employee's act reasonably relates to the job, furthers the employer's business, and does not disobey a direct and specific order from a supervisor then present.

Little v. Rocky's · filed 1995-12-13(6)

To be compensable under the Act, an injury must arise out of and in the course of the employment pursuant to N.C.G.S. §97-2(6). An injury to a claimant whose act was reasonably related to the job for which the employee was hired, who was not disobeying a direct and specific order by a then present supervisor, and who was acting in the furtherance of the employer's business arises out of and in the course of employment.

Section 97-2(6) defines when an injury arises out of employment by requiring that it occur in the course of employment and have a causal relation to the employment.

Mills v. City of New Bern · filed 1996-04-16(6)

An injury arises out of the employment “when it occurs in the course of the employment and is a natural and probable consequence or incident of it, so that there is some causal relation between the accident and the performance of some service of the employment.” Taylor v. Twin City Club, 260 N.C. 435, 438, 132 S.E.2d 865, 868 (1963); N.C.G.S. § 97-2(6) (Supp. 1995).

Section 97-2(6) makes an injury compensable only when it arises out of and in the course of employment.

Royster v. Culp, Inc. · filed 1996-05-10(6)

An injury must arise out of and in the course of employment in order to be compensable under the Workers’ Compensation Act. N.C.G.S. § 97-2(6) (1991).

Section 97-2(6) covers an injury by accident arising out of and in the course of employment.

Burns v. Byrd Motor Lines, Inc. · filed 1998-02-04(6)

The plaintiff sustained an injury by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment with the defendant-employer. N.C.G.S. § 97-2(6).

Section 97-2(6) covers injuries by accident arising out of and in the course of employment.

Creel v. Town of Dover · filed 1997-07-01(6)

A claimant may receive compensation under the Act only for injury by accident “arising out of and in the course of’ his or her employment.

Subsection 97-2(6) treats an injury by accident arising out of and in the course of employment as a compensable injury.

Jenkins v. Richard and David Jacobs Group · filed 1998-06-12(6)

On November 22, 1995, plaintiff sustained an admittedly compensable injury by accident to her left leg, hip and back which arose out of and in the course of her employment with defendant-employer. Said injury by accident resulted in the aggravation and acceleration of her conditions of severe facet arthrosis, spondylolisthesis and nerve compression. G.S. § 97-2(6).

Section 97-2(6) requires a compensable injury to arise out of and in the course of employment.

Ham v. Ogden Corporation · filed 1998-08-27(6)

Plaintiff sustained an injury by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment with defendant. N.C.G.S. § 97-2(6).

Section 97-2(6) defines an injury as an injury by accident arising out of and in the course of employment.

Morgan v. Sylva Medical Center · filed 1998-09-11(6)

North Carolina General Statute § 97-2(6) provides that an injury within the meaning of the workers' compensation act "shall mean only injury by accident arising out of and in the course of the employment."

Section 97-2(6) and (10) require a compensable employee death to result from an injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment.

Roman v. Southland Transportation Co. · filed 1999-06-25(6), (10)

The North Carolina Workers’ Compensation Act provides that an employee’s death is compensable only when such death results from an irqury “arising out of’ and “in the course and scope of’ his employment. N.C.G.S. § 97-2(6), (10) (Supp. 1998). “Arising out of the employment” and “in the course of the employment” are two separate requirements a claimant must establish to receive compensation.

The section excludes injuries sustained during a personal deviation that does not benefit the employer to an appreciable extent.

Jacobs v. Sara Lee Corp. · filed 2002-01-07(6)

... Plaintiff did not sustain an injury arising out of and in the course of his employment. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-(2) (6); Roman v. SouthlandTrans. Co., 350 N.C. 549, 515 S.E.2d 214 (1999); Perry v. Bakeries Co.,262 N.C. 272, 136 S.E.2d 643 (1964); Lewis v. Tobacco Co., 260 N.C. 410,132 S.E.2d 877 (1963); Burton v. American National Ins. Co.,10 N.C. App. 499, 179 S.E.2d 7 (1971). An injury to an employee while he is performing acts for his benefit, or for the benefit of third persons, is not compensable unless the act benefits the employer to an appreciable extent.

Section 97-2(6) requires an accident to arise out of and occur in the course of employment for the resulting injuries to be compensable.

Dunn v. Marconi Communications, Inc. · filed 2002-09-16(6)

The greater weight of the evidence fails to establish that plaintiff's accident of April 14, 2000 arose of and in the course of his employment with defendant-employer. Therefore, plaintiff cannot recover for the injuries sustained in this accident. N.C.G.S. § 97-2(6).

Section 97-2(6) excludes a knee injury that does not arise out of or occur in the course of employment and is not a consequence of a compensable injury.

Clawson v. Camelot Manor Nursing Care · filed 2003-06-03(6)

Plaintiff's claim for injury to her right knee occurring on August 23, 2001, is denied because this injury did not arise out of or in the course of her employment and is not the consequence of her compensable back injury.

An injury arises out of and in the course of employment when a caregiver is hurt obtaining fruit for a patient as part of her food-related duties.

McGrady v. Olsten Corp. · filed 2003-08-05(6)

We conclude that the Industrial Commission’s findings of fact easily establish that plaintiff’s accident arose “in the course of’ her employment. We further conclude that these findings of fact sufficiently support its conclusion that plaintiff’s injury arose “out of’ her employment.

Section 97-2(6) covers accidental injuries arising out of and in the course of employment, including injuries in an employer’s parking lot while an employee leaves for lunch.

Harless v. Flynn · filed 1968-07-10(6)

This is so because an employee who sustains an “injury arising out of and in the course of . . . employment,” caused by the negligence of a fellow employee who was acting within “the course of employment,” as that term is used in G.S. 97-2(6), may not maintain an action at common law against the negligent employee.

An employee's fall on stairs leading to an employer-designated parking area can be an injury arising out of and in the course of employment.

Jennings v. Backyard Burgers Inc. · filed 1995-05-02(6)

Even though defendant-employer had no responsibility for upkeep or maintenance of those stairs, they exercised control over this area and the lower parking lot by demanding its employees to park in the lower lot which was only accessible by using this stairway. ... Plaintiff sustained an injury by accident on May 28, 1993 arising out of and in the course of his employment with defendant-employer. N.C.G.S. § 97-2(6); Bass v.Mecklenburg County, 258 N.C. 226, 128 S.E.2d 570, 1962.

Section 97-2(6) covers an assault when the employee’s work creates the risk of attack and the injury arises out of and in the course of employment.

Hauser v. Advanced Plastiform, Inc. · filed 1999-06-01(6)

The evidence presented supports the Full Commission’s conclusion of law that Hauser’s death “arose out of and in the course of her employment[.]”

An injury from a blood test required by law because of the employee’s work does not arise out of and in the course of employment.

King v. Arthur · filed 1957-03-06(f)

Our attention has not been called to any decision or textbook authority, and we have been unable to find any, which supports the view that where a statute requires a blood test, because of the nature of the work of the employee, that an injury resulting from such test is compensable as an accident “arising out of and in the course of the employment.” Therefore, in our opinion, upon the facts disclosed by the record on this appeal, the ruling of the court below should be reversed, and it is so ordered.

An accident arises out of and in the course of employment when an employee reasonably waits for a ride home on the employer’s premises after work and is injured there.

Ragland v. Harris · filed 2002-08-06(6)

For an injury to be compensable under the Act, the employee must show that the injury was caused by an accident arising out of and in the course of the employment. ... Therefore, we conclude that plaintiffs alleged injuries arose out of and in the course of his employment.

An injury arises out of employment when a work hazard contributes to it, even if an idiopathic condition may also have contributed.

Rackley v. Coastal Painting · filed 2002-10-15(6)

In order to be compensable under the Act, an employee’s injury by accident must arise out of and in the scope of employment. See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-2(6) (2002). ... Furthermore, the Commission was entitled to infer from that evidence, as well as evidence of the fall from the ladder and the nature of the injury, that the hazard contributed to plaintiffs injury. ... These conclusions were supported by the findings of fact and correct as a matter of law. Therefore, we affirm the Industrial Commission’s ruling that plaintiff sustained a compensable injury by accident and is thus entitled to the permanent total disability benefits awarded by the Commission.

An insurance broker that procures coverage but issues no workers’ compensation policy is not the contractor’s carrier or insurer under § 97-2(7).

Martin v. Payne D/B/A Payne Roofing Cont. · filed 1996-07-19(7)

Greene Insurance Agency itself does not provide insurance coverage of any kind but rather is engaged in the procurement of insurance from licensed insurance carriers for its clients. ... N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-2 (7) defines an insurance "carrier" or "insurer" as "any person or fund authorized under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-93 to insure under this Article, and includes self-insurers". ... Regarding the issue of whether or not defendant-Bill Payne d/b/a Payne Roofing Contractors possessed workers' compensation insurance coverage on August 19, 1993 as evidenced by the certificates of insurance given to said defendant by defendant-Tom Greene d/b/a Greene Insurance Agency, the general contractor and its workers' compensation carrier would be a necessary party for the Industrial Commission to obtain jurisdiction of this matter as there was no policy issued by defendant-Greene Insurance Agency to defendant-Payne Roofing Contractors.

An independent insurance agency that is not authorized to insure under the Workers’ Compensation Act is not an insurance carrier or insurer under § 97-2(7).

Gonzalez v. Worrell · filed 2011-08-05(7)

The Scott Insurance Agency is not an insurance carrier or insurer under the meaning of the Act. The Scott Insurance Agency is an independent insurance agency and is not authorized to insure under the Act, therefore the Commission has no jurisdiction to assess an award of workers' compensation benefits against it.

Section 97-2(6) includes mental injuries by accident within its definition of injury; a physical injury is not required if the resulting disability meets statutory requirements.

Jordan v. Central Piedmont Community College · filed 1996-10-15(6)

The only injury which the General Assembly’s definition specifically characterizes as physical in nature is a back injury. The General Assembly went no further in defining injury. Except for back injuries, the Act makes no distinction between physical and psychological injuries.

Section 97-2(6) requires a claimed emotional or psychiatric condition to be causally related to the injury by accident.

Harmon v. Food Lion Store 748 · filed 1998-07-16(6)

The greater weight of the competent, credible, and convincing evidence fails to establish that any emotional or psychiatric condition which plaintiff developed beginning around August 1993 is causally related to his injury by accident of April 29, 1993. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-2 (6).

Section 97-2(6) covers psychological conditions that are a natural and direct consequence of a compensable physical injury.

Zbytniuk v. Abf Freight Sys. · filed 2003-09-23(6)

Based on the greater weight of the medical evidence, plaintiff suffers from severe psychological problems including depression with occasional homicidal and suicidal ideation, which is a natural and direct consequence of his compensable knee injury and the resulting chronic knee pain. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-2 (6).

Section 97-2(6) requires proof that an injury by accident caused, accelerated or aggravated a claimed psychological condition.

Shaw v. Defender Svcs. · filed 2005-06-27(6)

Plaintiff has failed to prove by the greater weight of the competent credible evidence and medical evidence of record that her March 3, 2001 injury by accident caused, accelerated or aggravated her mental condition of anxiety and depression, or other psychological disorders.

A psychological condition is not compensable under § 97-2(6) unless an injury by accident caused or aggravated it.

Salomon v. Mecklenburg County · filed 2009-05-18(6)

Plaintiff did not sustain an injury by accident on March 21, 2006, which caused or aggravated her psychological condition, and therefore her claim is not compensable. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-2 (6).

Under § 97-2(6), a mental injury is not an injury by accident when it results from an expected comment following the employee’s own disclosure during a workplace exercise.

Goodson v. AFFILIATED COMPUTER SERVICES · filed 2009-07-07(6)

It is not unusual or unexpected for a third party to comment on a prosthetic eye when its existence is disclosed by the individual with the eye. As the Commission's findings are supported by competent evidence and support the Commission's conclusion that Plaintiff did not sustain an injury by accident, Plaintiff's argument is overruled.

A mental injury can be compensable when it results from an injury by accident under the same definition used for physical injuries.

Mays v. Caf&201 · filed 2011-05-03(6)

A mental injury by accident can be compensable under the Workers' Compensation Act if it results from an "injury by accident" using the same definition of that term as is used for a physical injury under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-2 (6).

Section 97-2(6) permits compensation for a mental injury caused by an injury by accident, applying the same injury-by-accident definition used for physical injuries.

Thomas v. Conagra Foods, Inc. · filed 2011-08-23(6)

A mental injury by accident can be compensable under the Workers' Compensation Act if it results from an "injury by accident" using the same definition of that term as is used for a physical injury under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-2 (6).

Section 97-2(6) recognizes emotional distress as an injury when an accident causes it to arise out of and in the course of employment.

Shaw v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. · filed 2013-01-15(6)

Accordingly, plaintiff’s NIED claim caused by defendant’s mishandling of her complaint would fall within the purview of the Industrial Commission as her emotional distress is an “injury” recognized by the Workers Compensation Act.

Section 97-2(6) covers a heart attack precipitated by unexpected work events, including one triggered by emotional stress.

Cody v. Snider Lumber Co. · filed 1989-11-21(6)

Nor was the injury — the heart attack — not caused by accident, as the Commission concluded, because it was precipitated by a mental stimulus, frustration, rather than physical exertion or contact.