Teague v. . Atlantic Co.

Per Curiam.

We tbink tbe judgment of tbe court below correct.

Tbe Full commission cited numerous authorities to sustain its award, and in tbe final conclusions of law stated: “Under tbe facts of this case we do not believe that Teague’s injury arose out of bis employment. In other words, we do not find a causal connection between tbe conditions under which bis work was required to be done and tbe resulting injury. His injury did not follow as a natural incident of tbe work. We conclude that there was no causal connection between tbe conditions under which tbe work was required to be performed and tbe resulting injury. Our law requires that an injury must occur both In tbe course of tbe employment’ and ‘arise out of tbe employment.’ Neither one alone is sufficient. Under tbe facts, tbe decisions, and sound reasoning, Teague’s injury certainly did not, in our opinion, arise out of bis employment. It appears that tbe unfortunate young, man lost bis life by stepping aside from tbe sphere of bis employment and voluntarily and in violation of bis employer’s orders, for bis own convenience or for the thrill of attempting a hazardous feat, attempted to ride on machinery installed and used for another purpose and obviously dangerous for tbe use be attempted to make of it rather than take tbe usual course of going from tbe basement to tbe first floor by way of tbe stairs provided and used for that purpose. Compensation cannot be awarded tbe dependents of tbe deceased for tbe above reasons. Compensation is therefore denied. Let an award issue accordingly.”

Tbe court below gave judgment as follows: “It is now ordered, adjudged and decreed: (1) That tbe award made by tbe North Carolina Industrial Commission, dated 9 February, 1938, this cause being designated before tbe said Commission by Docket No. 6941, be and is in all respects approved and affirmed. (2) That tbe findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth in tbe opinion of tbe North Carolina Industrial Commission, filed 4 February, 1938, be and are approved and affirmed. That tbe plaintiffs’ claim for compensation be and is denied.”

There was plenary competent evidence to sustain tbe findings of fact made by tbe Full Commission, which are controlling with us. We tbink tbe conclusions of law on tbe facts found are correct.

Tbe judgment of tbe court below is

Affirmed.

Sea well, J., took no part in tbe consideration or decision of this case.