# Ridout v. Rose's 5-10-25c Stores

> Supreme Court of North Carolina · November 22, 1933 · 205 N.C. 423

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3660522

## Case

- **Full name:** CLARENCE B. RIDOUT, Deceased, and MR. AND MRS. C. G. RIDOUT, Father and Mother, as Next of Kin of Deceased, and WILLIAM DEMENT, Deceased, and MRS. MYRTLE DEMENT, Mother and Next of Kin of Deceased, v. ROSE’S 5-10-25c STORES, Employer, and UNITED STATES FIDELITY AND GUARANTY COMPANY, Carrier
- **Court:** Supreme Court of North Carolina
- **Decided:** November 22, 1933
- **Citations:** 205 N.C. 423; 171 S.E. 642; 1933 N.C. LEXIS 577
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion of the court by Adams
- **Judges:** Adams
- **Cited by:** 23 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3660522

## Opinion text

Adams, J.
Tbe 'Workmen’s Compensation Law defines “injury” and “personal injury” as injury by accident arising out of and iii tlie course of tbe employment — tbe words “out of” referring to tbe origin or cause* of tbe accident and tbe words “in tbe course of” to' tbe time, place and circumstances under wbicb tbe accident occurred. Compensation Law, sec. 2(f) ;
Conrad v. Foundry Co.,
198 N. C., 723 . Whether tbe accident-complained of arose out of and in tbe course of the employment is a mixed question of law and fact
(Harden v. Furniture Co.,
199 N. C., 733 ); but tbe facts as found by tbe Commission, when supported by competent evidence, are “conclusive and binding” on the appellate courts. Compensation Law, sec. 60;
Bryson v. Lumber Co.,
204 N. C., 664 ;
Johnson v. Bagging Co.,
203 N. C., 579 ;
Wimbish v. Detective Co.,
202 N. C., 800 .
Tbe Industrial Commission found from tbe conflicting evidence that tbe death of tbe employees occurred while they were engaged in an adventure primarily for personal and social reasons and not in tbe performance of any duty expressly or impliedly connected with their employment, and that their receipt of tbe goods was incidental to tbe trip. It is obvious that from Saturday night until Monday morning tbe relation of employer and employee was suspended, and that there was no causal relation between the employment and tbe accident.
Canter v. Board of Education,
201 N. C., 836 ;
Dependents of Phifer v. Dairy,
200 N. C., 65 . It follows that the death of tbe employees did not arise out of and in the course of their employment. Judgment
Affirmed.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3660522. Public record. Not legal advice.