Thе policy of insurance on which plaintiff sued contained an exclusion “for treatment of bodily injuries arising from or in the course of any employment.” The trial court in rendering judgment for defendant, concluded that the accident which caused plaintiff Manjit Dayal’s injuries did not “arisе from” Dayal’s employment, but did occur “in the course” of such employment. We disagree, and therefore reverse.
The identical еxclusionary language relied on by defendant has come before this court once before, where we ruled that the phrase “аrising from or in the course of’ employment was unambiguous.
Brown v. Insurance Co.,
In applying the principles of workers’ compensation law, it must be remembered that case law reflects a long-settled рolicy that the provisions of the Act are to be construed liberally and in favor of the employee.
See Stevenson v. City of Durham,
*133
The trial court ruled that plaintiff husband’s injury occurred “in the course of’ his employment. The term, as used in workers’ compensation cases, refers to the time, place, and circumstances of the accident.
Hoyle v. Isenhour Brick and Tile Co.,
An employee, while about his employer’s business, may do those things which are necessary to his own health and comfort, even though personal to himself, and such acts are regarded as incidental to the employment. . . .
“Such acts as are necessary to the life, comfоrt and convenience of the workman while at work, though personal to himself, and not technically acts of service, are incidеntal to the service; and an accident occurring in the performance of such acts is deemed to have arisen out of the employment. Such acts are regarded as inevitable incidents of the employment, and accidents happening in the performance of such acts are regarded as arising out of and in the course of the employment.”
Id.
(quoting
Rewis v. Insurance Co.,
Various personal comfort activities have been held by North Carolina courts to fall within the course of employment under the doctrine.
See Rewis v. Insurance Co., supra
(visit to washroom);
Fox v. Mills, Inc.,
*134
The courts of other states hаve split on whether injuries incurred while sleeping on the job arise in the course of employment. Generally, such injuries do
not
arise in the course of employment if (1) sleeping is contrary to positive duties of the employee,
Union Indem. Co. v. Malley,
Where the sleep is intentional, however, it appears that the extent of the departure from work and the nature of the wоrk itself áre determinative. Thus, if the employee rests briefly, especially if the physical nature of the job suggests it, sleep during intentional rest mаy be in the course of employment.
Richards v. Indianapolis Abattoir Co.,
With the foregoing principles in mind, we hold that the trial court erred in concluding that the accident occurred “in the course of’ plaintiffs employment. Plaintiff had left the work area and had gone off to another area, totally unused in his business, to sleep for forty-five minutes. The fact that plaintiff also owned the sleeping area appears merely fortuitous and does not affect the result. This is especially true in light of the uncontradicted evidence thаt plaintiff’s son never disturbed him during his naps. Plaintiff having completely abandoned his employment for a sub *135 stantial period, the accident that bеfell him accordingly did not occur in the course of his employment. 2
Defendant cross-assigns error to the trial court’s ruling that the accident did not “arise from” the employment. In the context of this case, we conclude that “arising from” in the policy means the same as “arising оut of.” The trial court used this interpretation. As used in the Act, “arising out of’ refers to the origin or causal connection of the accidental injury to the employment.
Gallimore v. Marilyn’s Shoes,
On the undisputed facts of this case, plaintiffs are entitled to judgment in their favor on the issue of liability, and it is so ordered. The case must be remanded for аppropriate findings and judgment as to damages.
Reversed and remanded.
Notes
. Sleeping on the job was involved in
Stallcup v. Wood Turning Co.,
. The trial court ruled that the sleep period “benefitted” the employment. The court misapplied a rule which deals with injuries occurring during unauthorized work activities, not under the personal comfort doctrine. See Hoyle v. Isenhour Brick and Tile Co., supra.