N.C. Gen. Stat. » Chapter 97
NC General Statutes

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-36 (2026)

Accidents taking place outside State; employees receiving compensation from another state

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NCLEGncleg.gov (official) JustiaChapter 97 CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Where an accident happens while the employee is employed elsewhere than in this State and the accident is one which would entitle him or his dependents or next of kin to compensation if it had happened in this State, then the employee or his dependents or next of kin shall be entitled to compensation (i) if the contract of employment was made in this State, (ii) if the employer's principal place of business is in this State, or (iii) if the employee's principal place of employment is within this State; provided, however, that if an employee or his dependents or next of kin shall receive compensation or damages under the laws of any other state nothing herein contained shall be construed so as to permit a total compensation for the same injury greater than is provided for in this Article. (1929, c. 120, s. 36; 1963, c. 450, s. 2; 1967, c. 1229, s. 3; 1973, c. 1059; 1991, c. 284.)

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 25 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1955–2022 · leading case: Perkins v. Arkansas Trucking Servs., Inc., 528 S.E.2d 902 (N.C. 2000).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Perkins v. Arkansas Trucking Servs., Inc., 528 S.E.2d 902 (N.C. 2000). · cites it 22× “On 8 May 1996, after a hearing limited to the jurisdictional question, the deputy commissioner entered an interlocutory opinion and order concluding that plaintiff’s principal place of employment was within North Carolina and, therefore, that the Commission had jurisdiction over…”
Burley v. U.S. Foods, Inc., 756 S.E.2d 84 (N.C. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 84× “Baddour concluded that the a modified contract does not constitute a contract “made” in North Carolina for purposes of the relevant jurisdiction granting statute, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-36 (2013). Dep. Comm.”
Burley v. U.S. Foods, Inc., 776 S.E.2d 832 (N.C. 2015). · cites it 63× “N.C.G.S. § 97-36 (2013). We conclude that the modification that occurred BURLEY V.”
Washington v. Traffic Markings, Inc., 643 S.E.2d 44 (N.C. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 24× “On 24 May 2005, the deputy commissioner entered an opinion and award that concluded the Commission has jurisdiction over plaintiff's claim pursuant to N.C. Gen.Stat. § 97-36. Defendants appealed to the Full Commission.”
Hyler v. GTE Prods. Co., 425 S.E.2d 698 (N.C. 1993). · cites it 6× “N.C.G.S. § 97-36 (if employee's injury occurs out of state, he is entitled to "compensation" as if it had occurred in this state only under certain conditions).”
Thomas v. Overland Express, Inc., 398 S.E.2d 921 (N.C. Ct. App. 1990). · cites it 9× “On 30 January 1989 former Deputy Commissioner Harper issued his Opinion and Award dismissing plaintiff’s claim by interpreting G.S. 97-36 to mean that the Commission did not have subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiff’s claim.”
Davis v. Great Coastal Express, 610 S.E.2d 276 (N.C. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 13× “N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-36 provides: Where an accident happens while the employee is employed elsewhere than in this State and the accident is one which would entitle him .”
Murray v. Ahlstrom Indus. Holdings, Inc., 506 S.E.2d 724 (N.C. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 6× “” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-36 (1991). The record shows, and it is not disputed here, that Ahlstrom’s principal place of business is outside the state of North Carolina.”
Holmes v. Associated Pipe Line Contractors, Inc., 795 S.E.2d 671 (N.C. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 8× “Had plaintiff not submitted to the drug test and consented to the background check, [Associated] would not have hired plaintiff to work on the Huntsville, Texas job.”
Beal v. Coastal Carriers, Inc., 794 S.E.2d 882 (N.C. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 2× “ents or next of kin to compensation if it had happened in this State, then the employee or his dependents or next of kin shall be entitled to compensation (i) if the contract of employment was made in this State , (ii) if the employer's principal place of business is in this…”
Aylor v. Barnes, 87 S.E.2d 269 (N.C. 1955). · cites it 2× “Appellants, by their assignments of error presented on this appeal, challenge the jurisdiction of the North Carolina Industrial Commission in the premises on the grounds, among others, that at the time of his death, the employee, Odell Aylor, was not a resident of this State…”
Suggs v. Williamson Truck Lines, 116 S.E.2d 359 (N.C. 1960). · cites it 3× “G.S. 97-36, in pertinent part, reads as follows: “Where an accident *153 happens while employee is employed elsewhere than in this State which would entitle him or his dependents to compensation if it had happened in this State, the employee or his dependents shall be entitled…”
Show all 25 citing cases →
— N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-36(iii) — 1 case
Perkins v. Arkansas Trucking Servs., Inc., 528 S.E.2d 902 (N.C. 2000). “On 8 May 1996, after a hearing limited to the jurisdictional question, the deputy commissioner entered an interlocutory opinion and order concluding that plaintiff’s principal place of employment was within North Carolina and, therefore, that the Commission had jurisdiction over…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.