Fagundes v. Ammons Dev. Grp., Inc.
251 N.C. App. 735
| N.C. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Frank Fagundes was injured on July 25, 2013, when debris from a blast overseen by co-worker Juan Albino struck him while he performed rock-crushing work for East Coast Drilling & Blasting, Inc.
- Fagundes sued the company, its CEO Scott Carle, and Albino asserting, among other claims, strict liability for ultrahazardous activity (blasting) and a willful/wanton/reckless negligence (Pleasant) claim against Albino.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment arguing the Workers’ Compensation Act (WCA) provides the exclusive remedy for workplace injuries, divesting superior court jurisdiction.
- The trial court denied summary judgment as to the strict liability and Pleasant claims; defendants appealed the denial as immediately appealable.
- The Court of Appeals reviewed whether (1) an employee injured during an ultrahazardous activity may sue in court despite the WCA exclusivity, and (2) whether Fagundes forecasted evidence of willful/wanton/reckless conduct by Albino.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether WCA exclusivity bars a strict-liability claim for injury during ultrahazardous activity | Fagundes: blasting is ultrahazardous; common-law strict liability should permit suit in court | Defendants: WCA is the exclusive remedy for work-related injuries; no statutory exception for ultrahazardous activities | Court: WCA exclusivity applies; no judicially created ultrahazardous exception — reverse and remand to dismiss those claims for lack of jurisdiction |
| Whether Woodson allows judicial exception based on dangerousness of job | Fagundes: his position is a logical extension of Woodson to ultrahazardous jobs | Defendants: Woodson’s exception depends on employer intent/knowledge, not inherent job danger | Court: Woodson’s test requires substantial-certainty misconduct; dangerousness alone does not create an exception |
| Whether strict liability at common law differs materially from WCA remedies to justify court jurisdiction | Fagundes: common-law remedies (and potentially larger recoveries) warrant court access | Defendants: WCA already imposes employer strict liability and provides remedies; only monetary difference exists | Court: Monetary potential is not a jurisdictional basis; legislature chose exclusivity — courts will not rewrite Act |
| Whether evidence supports Pleasant (willful/wanton/reckless) claim against Albino | Fagundes: five OSHA citations and their characterization as “egregious” show wrongful conduct by Albino | Albino: plaintiff forecasted no evidence of willful, wanton, or reckless conduct; OSHA citations alone insufficient | Court: OSHA citations insufficient to show willful/wanton/reckless conduct; summary judgment should have been entered for Albino |
Key Cases Cited
- Woodson v. Rowland, 329 N.C. 330 (1991) (creates narrow exception to WCA exclusivity where employer intentionally engages in misconduct substantially certain to cause serious injury or death)
- Pleasant v. Johnson, 312 N.C. 710 (1985) (WCA does not shield co-employee from common-law liability for willful, wanton, and reckless negligence)
- Trivette v. Yount, 366 N.C. 303 (2012) (applies Woodson test as to employer substantial-certainty misconduct)
- Pendergrass v. Card Care, Inc., 333 N.C. 233 (1993) (knowing violation of safety regulations does not necessarily meet Pleasant standard)
- Kinsey v. Spann, 139 N.C. App. 370 (2000) (discusses ultrahazardous activity—blasting—at common law)