Bolling v. . Belk-White Co.

Tbe claimants frankly concede that tbe award, if sustained, must be made to rest on presumptions. Tbe hiatus in tbe case arises from tbe fact tbat while there may be a presumption of injury by accident, which occurred in tbe course of tbe employment, there is neither presumption nor evidence to support tbe conclusion tbat tbe injury arose out of tbe employment. Taylor v. Wake Forest, ante, 346; Lewis v. Ins. Co., 226 N. C., 325, 38. S. E. (2d), 97; Anno. 120 A. L. R., 683. This defeats tbe award.

There is no suggestion tbat tbe deceased was authorized to keep a pistol or to use it in tbe business of tbe employer. Tbe causal connection between tbe injury and tbe employment is not apparent as was tbe case in McGill v. Lumberton, 218 N. C., 586, 11 S. E. (2d), 873; S. c., 215 N. C., 752, 3 S. E. (2d), 324.

Tbe occurrence to an employee of an injury, (1) by accident (2) arising out of and (3) in tbe course of tbe employment, is tbe sine qua non to compensation under tbe North Carolina Workmen’s Compensation Act. G. S., Ob. 97. “Arising out of” has been defined to mean as coming from tbe work tbe employee is to do, or out of tbe services be is to perform, and as a natural result of one of tbe risks of tbe employment. Tbe injury must spring from tbe employment or have its origin therein. Ashley v. Chevrolet Co., 222 N. C., 25, 21 S. E. (2d), 834; Bryan v. Loving Co., 222 N. C., 724, 24 S. E. (2d), 751; Hunt v. State, 201 N. C., 707, 161 S. E., 203; Conrad v. Foundry Co., 198 N. C., 723, 153 S. E., *751 266. The accident “arises out of” the employment when it occurs in the course of the employment and is the result of a risk involved therein or incident thereto, or to the conditions under which it is required to be performed. Taylor v. Wake Forest, supra. There must be some causal connection between the employment and the injury. Canter v. Board of Education, 201 N. C., 836, 160 S. E., 924; Chambers v. Oil Co., 199 N. C., 28, 153 S. E., 594; Plemmons v. White’s Service, 213 N. C., 148, 195 S. E., 370; Ridout v. Rose’s Stores, Inc., 205 N. C., 423, 17 S. E. (2d), 642; Harden v. Furniture Co., 199 N. C., 733, 155 S. E., 728; Brown v. Aluminum Co., 224 N. C., 766, 32 S. E. (2d), 320; Wilson v. Mooresville, 222 N. C., 283, 22 S. E. (2d), 907; Robbins v. Hosiery Mills, 220 N. C., 246, 17 S. E. (2d), 20.

The record fails to sustain the award of the Industrial Commission. .Hence, the judgment below should have been for the appellants.

Reversed.