Hardy v. Small’s Empirical Analysis
1957
Citation profile
62 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 62 later decisions — most recently December 2007 · most notably Brewer v. POWERS TRUCKING COMPANY (1962), Allred v. Allred-Gardner, Incorporated (1960)
62 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Henry v. A. C. Lawrence Leather Co. · Guest v. Brenner Iron & Metal Company · Conrad v. Cook-Lewis Foundry Co. · Bryan v. T. A. Loving Co. & Associates · Johnson v. Asheville Hosiery Co.
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 62 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It would seem unrealistic and unduly restrictive to say that deceased would be in the course of his employment while in a particular field where he was directed to perform labor on a particular day but not while going back and forth across the farm between the area of the house and such field. The feeding of the livestock was just as much a part of the operation of the farm as tending the crops. In respect of the particular work he was employed and directed to do when fatally injured, the circumstances impel the conclusion that the real nature of his employment was to go to the barn and feed the livestock. The feeding of the livestock being a part of the operation of the farm as a whole, the trip (across the farm) between the area of the house and the barn may reasonably be considered within the terms of his employment. So considered, the period of his employment commenced when he left the area of his house for the barn; and, in the absence of evidence of deviation, terminated upon his return from the barn to the area of the house. The fact that he was injured while in such employment and on a mission for his employer affords sufficient factual basis for the determination that his injury arose out of and in the course of his employment. It is noteworthy that the public highway was neither necessary nor used as a means of access to the barn, i.e., in the sense of travel along the highway. The fact that he had to cross the highway on his way to and from the barn constituted an”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage““The basic rule is that the words ‘out of’ refer to the origin or cause of the accident, and that the words ‘in the course of’ refer to the time, place and circumstances under which it occurred. Conrad v. Foundry Co., 198 N.C. 723 , 153 S.E. 266 ; Alford v. Chevrolet Co., 246 N.C. 214, 217 , 97 S.E. 2d 869 . $ ‡ ‡ An injury does not arise out of and in the course of the employment unless it is fairly traceable to the employment as a contributing proximate cause. Hence, injury by accident is not compensable if it results from a hazard to which the public generally is subject. Walker v. Wilkins, Inc., 212 N.C. 627 , 194 S.E. 89 ; Marsh v. Bennett College, 212 N.C. 662 , 194 S.E. 303 , tornado cases; Plemmons v. White’s Service, Inc., 213 N.C. 148 , 195 S.E. 370 , mad dog case.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage“the employer, as an incident to the contract of employment, provides the means of transportation to and from the place where the work of employment is performed.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.