Jones v. Willamette Industries, Inc.
120 N.C. App. 591, 463 S.E.2d 294, 1995 N.C. App. LEXIS 897 (1995)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An employer's conduct does not meet the 'substantial certainty' standard required to bypass the workers' compensation bar unless the employer engaged in misconduct with actual or constructive knowledge that it was substantially certain to cause serious injury or death; a failure to implement better safety measures for a procedure with a history of safe use is insufficient to meet this standard.
Facts:
- Willamette Industries, Inc. (Willamette) employed a procedure for cleaning industrial boilers that required employees, including one named Jones, to enter the vessel.
- This cleaning procedure was the same one used without incident by Willamette's predecessor in ownership.
- In 1990, a non-injurious incident occurred where slag collapsed inside the vessel, but the employees involved did not report it to their supervisors at the time.
- A supervisor, Mullins, only became aware of the 1990 incident several months after it occurred.
- Willamette had never been cited for any safety violations related to this boiler cleaning procedure.
- Subsequently, Jones was fatally injured while performing the cleaning procedure when slag collapsed inside the boiler.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiff, representing the estate of a deceased employee (Jones), filed a civil lawsuit in a North Carolina trial court against the employer, Willamette, and several individual supervisors.
- The lawsuit alleged a 'Woodson' claim against Willamette, 'Pleasant' claims against the individual co-employee defendants, and a strict liability claim against Willamette.
- The defendants moved for summary judgment on all claims.
- The trial court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, dismissing the plaintiff's case.
- The plaintiff, as the appellant, appealed the trial court's decision to the North Carolina Court of Appeals.
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 an employer's continuation of a long-standing work procedure, which has not previously resulted in serious injury or safety citations, constitute misconduct known to be 'substantially certain' to cause serious injury or death, thereby creating an exception to the workers' compensation bar?
Opinions:
Majority - Arnold, C.J.
No. The employer's conduct does not meet the 'substantial certainty' standard required for an exception to the workers' compensation bar. Under the standard established in Woodson, an employee may only pursue a civil action if the employer intentionally engages in misconduct knowing it is substantially certain to cause serious injury or death. Here, the evidence did not show Willamette had such knowledge. The cleaning procedure had a long history of use without major incident by both Willamette and its predecessor, and the company had no prior safety citations for the process. While a minor, unreported incident occurred previously, this was insufficient to establish that Willamette knew the procedure was substantially certain to cause death or serious injury. Expert affidavits concluding the standard was met are not, by themselves, sufficient to defeat summary judgment. The court also held that the supervisors' conduct did not rise to the level of willful, wanton, and reckless negligence required to sue a co-employee, and the activity was not 'ultrahazardous' because the risks could be eliminated with reasonable care.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the high evidentiary burden plaintiffs face to overcome the exclusivity of the workers' compensation system in North Carolina. It clarifies that the 'substantial certainty' standard of the Woodson exception requires proof of the employer's subjective knowledge of impending harm, rather than just objective evidence of a dangerous condition. The ruling makes it difficult to hold employers liable in civil court for workplace accidents unless there is clear evidence of prior similar injuries, ignored safety warnings, or other facts demonstrating the employer knew harm was a near certainty. Consequently, the case significantly protects employers from tort liability for conduct that, while potentially negligent, does not rise to the level of an intentional tort.
