Braxton v. Anco Electric, Inc.
330 N.C. 124, 409 S.E.2d 914, 1991 N.C. LEXIS 746 (1991)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When an employee covered by one state's workers' compensation statute is injured in another state, the law of the state providing the workers' compensation benefits determines whether the statute's 'exclusive remedy' provision bars a tort action against a third party, not the law of the state where the injury occurred.
Facts:
- Larry Gordon Braxton, a North Carolina resident, was employed by Dubberly & Son Plumbing, a North Carolina corporation.
- Dubberly & Son Plumbing was a subcontractor on a construction project for the South Hampton Shopping Center in Franklin, Virginia.
- Anco Electric, Inc., another North Carolina corporation, was also a subcontractor working on the same project.
- While working on the Virginia construction site, Braxton climbed a ladder and came into contact with an electrical wire allegedly left exposed by Anco Electric.
- Braxton suffered an electrical shock that caused him to fall and sustain injuries.
- Following the injury, Braxton received workers' compensation benefits pursuant to the North Carolina Workers' Compensation Act.
Procedural Posture:
- Larry Gordon Braxton (plaintiff) filed a tort action against Anco Electric, Inc. (defendant) in a North Carolina trial court.
- Anco Electric filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, arguing the suit was barred by Virginia law.
- The trial court granted the defendant's motion and dismissed the action, applying the doctrine of 'lex loci delicti'.
- Braxton (appellant) appealed the dismissal to the North Carolina Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's decision, holding that North Carolina substantive law should apply for public policy reasons.
- Anco Electric (appellant) appealed the Court of Appeals' decision to the Supreme Court of North Carolina.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Virginia law barring tort claims against a subcontractor by another subcontractor's employee prevent a North Carolina employee, covered by North Carolina's workers' compensation, from suing a North Carolina subcontractor in a North Carolina court for an injury that occurred in Virginia?
Opinions:
Majority - Martin, J.
No. Virginia's law does not bar the action because North Carolina's law, which permits the suit, governs the question of whether a statutory workers' compensation scheme provides an exclusive remedy. While the traditional rule of 'lex loci delicti' dictates that Virginia's substantive tort law will govern the negligence claim itself, the threshold question of whether the suit is statutorily barred is determined by the law of the state providing the workers' compensation benefits. North Carolina has a paramount public policy interest in applying its own statutory protections because all parties are North Carolina residents, the employment relationship was formed in North Carolina, and the plaintiff is receiving benefits under North Carolina's statute. Furthermore, under the doctrine of 'renvoi', a Virginia court would likely apply North Carolina law in this situation, as shown in its own precedent ('Solomon v. Call').
Dissenting - Meyer, J.
Yes. The law of Virginia, where the injury occurred, should bar the action. The majority's decision abandons the long-settled, predictable choice-of-law doctrine of 'lex loci delicti' in favor of a 'most significant relationship' test that North Carolina has previously rejected. This creates uncertainty in the law. The majority's public policy argument is circular, and its use of the anachronistic 'renvoi' doctrine is a result-oriented maneuver to avoid applying Virginia's clear substantive law. The precedent relied upon by the majority, 'Leonard v. Johns-Manville', is distinguishable because it involved a situation where Virginia law was silent on the issue, which is not the case here.
Analysis:
This decision carves out a significant public policy exception to North Carolina's traditional adherence to the 'lex loci delicti' (law of the place of injury) rule in tort cases. It bifurcates the choice-of-law analysis by applying the law of the forum state (North Carolina) to the threshold issue of a workers' compensation bar, while retaining the 'lex loci' rule for the substantive tort claim. This prioritizes the protective interests of a state's workers' compensation scheme for its own residents over the predictability of a strict, territorially-based rule. The case signals a potential shift away from rigid jurisdictional rules toward a more interest-based analysis in conflict of laws scenarios involving workers' compensation.
