Trivette v. Yount, 366 N.C. 303

Plaintiff Joan Trivette was a part-time secretary/office assistant at William Lenoir Middle School; defendant Peter Yount was the school principal and supervisor.
Plaintiff sued for injuries from a fire extinguisher discharge allegedly caused by defendant’s willful and reckless conduct, seeking damages and loss of consortium.
Defendant moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) arguing the Workers’ Compensation Act exclusivity, and separately moved for summary judgment.
The trial court denied both motions; the Court of Appeals initially held the Pleasant exception could apply, and that defendant was a co-employee for purposes of the Act.
The North Carolina Supreme Court reviewed de novo, determining agency status is not dispositive and that the parties were co-employees for purposes of the Act, but plaintiff failed to forecast evidence of willful, wanton, and reckless negligence.
The Court reversed in part and remanded: affirming the dismissal of the Rule 12(b)(1) issue but reversing as to summary judgment, ultimately holding Pleasant claim insufficient and remanding for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Employer vs. co-employee status	Trivette argues Pleasant applies because Yount is a co-employee acting willfully.	Yount contends agency/employer status dictates exclusivity; not a co-employee.	Agency status irrelevant; they were co-employees for Pleasant purposes.
Pleasant exception applicability	Willful, wanton, and reckless conduct occurred; Pleasant allows recovery.	Evidence does not show willful, wanton, and reckless negligence.	Pleasant claim exists but insufficient evidence to defeat summary judgment.
Summary judgment on Pleasant claim	Evidence forecast supports willful conduct; jury should decide.	No reasonable forecast of willful, wanton, reckless conduct.	Trial court erred in denying summary judgment; grant of summary judgment appropriate.
Derivative loss of consortium	Loss of consortium is derivative of negligence claim and should survive along with Pleasant claim.	Loss of consortium fails if Pleasant claim fails.	Remand for proceedings not inconsistent with the opinion; Court of Appeals' denial of summary judgment reversed as to this count.

Pleasant v. Johnson, 312 N.C. 710 (1985) (establishes willful, wanton, reckless exception to exclusivity)
McAllister v. Cone Mills Corp., 88 N.C. App. 577 (1988) (explanation of exclusivity and co-employee concept)
Woodson v. Rowland, 329 N.C. 330 (1991) (employer liability framework under act)
Echols v. Zarn, Inc., 116 N.C. App. 364 (1994) (supervisor as co-employee for purposes of Act)
Dunleavy v. Yates Constr. Co., 106 N.C. App. 146 (1992) (foreman as co-employee; hazardous duties context)