Pleasant v. Johnson
57 A.L.R. 4th 873, 312 N.C. 710, 325 S.E.2d 244 (1985)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The exclusivity provision of the Workers' Compensation Act does not bar an injured employee from bringing a common law tort action against a co-employee for injuries caused by the co-employee's willful, wanton, and reckless conduct. Such conduct is treated as an intentional tort for the purpose of co-employee immunity under the Act.
Facts:
- The plaintiff, Pleasant, and the defendant, Johnson, were co-employees of Electricon Incorporated, working at a construction site.
- On May 13, 1980, Pleasant was returning from lunch, walking across the worksite's parking lot.
- Johnson, who was driving a truck, decided to engage in 'horseplay' by operating the vehicle very close to Pleasant in an attempt to scare him.
- While attempting this prank, Johnson misjudged his ability to control the truck and struck Pleasant.
- As a result of being struck, Pleasant suffered a serious injury to his right knee.
- Johnson later testified that he had been 'joking' and did not intend to actually hit Pleasant, but only to frighten him.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff Pleasant received disability benefits under the Workers' Compensation Act for his injury.
- Pleasant then filed a civil action against Defendant Johnson in the Superior Court of Durham County (trial court), alleging willful, wanton, and reckless negligence.
- At the close of Pleasant's evidence at trial, the court granted a directed verdict in favor of Johnson.
- Pleasant appealed to the North Carolina Court of Appeals (intermediate appellate court).
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, holding that the action was barred by the Workers' Compensation Act.
- The Supreme Court of North Carolina then granted review.
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 exclusivity provision of the North Carolina Workers' Compensation Act bar an employee from bringing a common law tort action against a co-employee for injuries caused by the co-employee's willful, wanton, and reckless conduct?
Opinions:
Majority - Mitchell, J.
No. The exclusivity provision of the North Carolina Workers' Compensation Act does not bar an employee from bringing a common law tort action against a co-employee for injuries caused by the co-employee's willful, wanton, and reckless conduct. The court reasoned that while the Act typically provides the sole remedy for workplace injuries and bars suits against co-employees for ordinary negligence, an exception exists for intentional torts. The court holds that conduct which is willful, wanton, and reckless should be treated as an intentional injury for the purposes of the Act. Such conduct demonstrates a 'constructive intent to injure' because it is so reckless and manifestly indifferent to the consequences that it is equivalent in spirit to an actual intent to harm. Allowing a common law action in these circumstances serves as a deterrent against future misconduct and prevents the 'travesty of justice' that would result from limiting an employee injured by such egregious conduct to the moderate benefits available under the Act.
Dissenting - Meyer, J.
Yes. The Workers' Compensation Act should provide the exclusive remedy and bar a common law suit against the co-employee. The majority's decision unwisely expands the exception to the Act's exclusivity without legislative authority and contrary to established precedent. The dissent argues that the purpose of the Act was a compromise where employees gave up their right to sue co-workers for negligence in exchange for certain benefits. This ruling will lead to a 'proliferation of suits' between employees over acts of 'horseplay.' The dissent emphasizes the distinction between the intent to do an act (horseplay) and the intent to cause an injury, arguing that Johnson's conduct was negligent, not intentional. This decision harms the statutory compromise by subjecting employees to personal liability for judgments that the workers' compensation system was designed to absorb.
Analysis:
This decision significantly alters the landscape of co-employee liability under the North Carolina Workers' Compensation Act by creating a new judicial exception to the exclusivity rule. By equating 'willful, wanton, and reckless negligence' with an intentional tort, the court lowers the threshold for an employee to sue a coworker outside of the workers' compensation system. This establishes a precedent that moves beyond the traditional distinction between negligence and intentional assault, creating a 'quasi-intent' category of tortious conduct. Future litigation will likely focus on defining the factual boundaries between ordinary negligence, which remains immune, and the willful, wanton, and reckless conduct that now gives rise to common law liability.
