Powers v. Lady’s Funeral Home
North Carolina Supreme Court
295 S.E.2d 473, 306 N.C. 728 (1982)
- Written by Serena Lipski, JD
Facts
Norwood Glenn Powers (plaintiff) worked as a mortician and embalmer for Lady’s Funeral Home (Lady’s) (defendant). Powers primarily worked during the day shift, during which he visited with friends and family of the deceased, made funeral arrangements, and embalmed bodies. If Powers performed any embalming, he was required to go home to shower and change his clothes because the smell of embalming fluid clung to him and Lady’s did not have shower facilities. Because Powers regularly interacted with the families and friends of the deceased, he could not smell like embalming fluid. When Powers left Lady’s at night, a night man took over, but because the night man was not an embalmer, Powers had to be on call at home. On the night of July 29, 1978, Powers was called at home to go to the residence of a deceased person, meet with the family, and pick up the body. After performing embalming work that night, Powers returned home to shower, change, and wait for another call. Powers parked his car in his driveway and walked toward his house. The car rolled into Powers, trapping him between his house and the car and causing serious injury. Powers filed a claim for workers’-compensation benefits. The deputy commission denied Powers’s claim, finding that the special-errand exception to the going-and-coming rule did not apply to injuries sustained on the employee’s own property. Powers appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Meyer, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.