Chinault v. Floyd S. Pike Electrical Contractors

Supreme Court of North Carolina July 13, 1982

Chinault v. Floyd S. Pike Electrical Contractors, 293 S.E.2d 147 (N.C. 1982)

306 N.C. 286; 1982 N.C. LEXIS 1438

Copeland, Mitchell, Exum, Carlton

Opinion of the Court

COPELAND, Justice.

This case was consolidated for oral argument with the case of Deese v. Lawn and Tree Expert Co., No. 16PA82 on our docket. Both cases have similar factual settings and raise identical legal issues about the correct interpretation and application of G.S. 97-38. We have this day filed an opinion in the Deese case which fully addresses and decides this statutory question in our workers’ compensation law. Our reasoning and holding in Deese, --- N.C. ---, --- S.E. 2d --- (1982), necessarily governs the outcome in the instant case, and we consequently affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals without further ado.1

*288Affirmed.

. We have thoroughly reviewed and considered the various authorities cited by the parties in their briefs in our more expansive and dispositive discussion in the companion Deese case, supra.

Dissenting Opinion

Justice Mitchell

dissenting.

I dissent and vote to reverse the Court of Appeals for the reasons set forth in my dissent in the case of Deese v. Lawn and Tree Expert Co., filed this date and bearing our Docket No. 16PA82.

Justices EXUM and CARLTON join in this dissenting opinion.

Reference

Full Case Name: SHARON B. CHINAULT, Widow; SHARON B. CHINAULT, Guardian for AMY R. CHINAULT, Step-Daughter, and HEATHER D. CHINAULT, Daughter; SANDRA W. CHINAULT, Guardian for LORI LEIGH CHINAULT, Daughter; JERRY S. CHINAULT, Deceased Employee, Plaintiffs v. FLOYD S. PIKE ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS, Employer; UNITED STATES FIDELITY AND GUARANTY CO., Carrier, Defendants
Cited By: 6 cases
Status: Published