Dillingham v. Yeargin Construction Co.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

21 state decisions

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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “7. The only occurrence which could be found to have been out of the ordinary on this occasion was that the tarp became hung. However, decedent’s heart attack did not occur until 15 to 20 minutes later after he had been involved in much more strenuous activity than his jerking on the tarp. His pulling on the tarp was not proven to be and is found not to be the precipitating cause of the heart attack. Rather, it was his emotional response to the situation in that he became aggravated and frustrated which was the precipating (sic) factor. Frustration, however, is a common reaction to many things which occur while driving on public streets and highways. Decedent had been a truck driver for most if not all of his adult life and had been subjected to these frustrations as a regular part of his life. The emotional response he had on this occasion does not constitute an injury by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. 8. Decedent drove the same truck regularly in his employment with defendant, and he was often required to make deliveries to the Bowater Plant. He was accustomed to not having power steering. The evidence does not indicate how many times in the past he had had to back the truck up the ramp in order to get it between the rails or to what extent he would otherwise be struggling with the steering wheel in order to drive in and out of tight places in the course of his employment. Decedent was required to do work outside of the truck year around and in ”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Cody v. Snider Lumber Co. · 127 N.C. App. 134 - Minter v. Osborne Co.

2. “[W]here the employment subjects a workman to a special or particular hazard from the elements, such as excessive heat or cold, likely to produce sunstroke or freezing, death or disability resulting from such cause usually comes within the purview of the compensation acts .... The test is whether the employment subjects the work man to a greater hazard or risk than that to which he otherwise would be exposed. Id. at 842-43 , 32 S.E. (2d) at 624 (citations omitted). Fields represents the majority rule in this country. Other jurisdictions hold, with virtual unanimity, that when the conditions of employment expose the claimant to extreme heat or cold, injuries such as heatstroke, heat exhaustion, heat prostration, sunstroke, freezing, and frostbite are considered accidental. IB A. Larson, The Law of Workmen’s Compensation Section 38.40 (1987); 99 C.J.S. Workmen’s Compensation Section 187 (1958); 83 A.L.R. 234 (1933).”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 165 N.C. App. 144 - Madison v. International Paper Co. · Holley v. Owens Corning Fiberglas Corp.

3. ““[W]here the employment subjects a workman to a special or particular hazard from the elements, such as excessive heat or cold, likely to produce sunstroke or freezing, death or disability resulting from such cause usually comes within the purview of the compensation acts. . . . The test is whether the employment subjects the workman to a greater hazard or risk than that to which he otherwise would be exposed.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 195 N.C. App. 31 - Reaves v. INDUSTRIAL PUMP SERVICE · 165 N.C. App. 144 - Madison v. International Paper Co.