Weaver v. DedmonÂ
2017 N.C. App. LEXIS 392
| N.C. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- In October 2012, 20‑year‑old Shaun Weaver was operating a Seegars Fence forklift in a fenced outdoor storage yard with subcontractor Daniel Dedmon; the forklift overturned and Weaver suffered severe injuries.
- Dedmon had been subcontracted by Seegars; Seegars provided materials and equipment (including the forklift), Dedmon directed work and hired Weaver; Dedmon had no workers’ compensation insurance.
- Eyewitness Mapes and an accident‑reconstruction expert testified Weaver was driving the forklift in high‑speed circles ("donuts") immediately before the rollover; photographs showed curved tire impressions.
- The Deputy Commissioner and Full Commission found Weaver was joyriding/engaging in thrill‑seeking, operating the forklift recklessly, and concluded the injury did not arise out of and in the course of employment.
- Commissioner Ballance dissented, arguing Weaver was acting in furtherance of his work (statutory employer liability); Weaver appealed.
- The Court of Appeals vacated and remanded, holding the Commission made contradictory factual findings and misapplied legal standards (mixing negligence analysis and the ‘‘incidental activity’’ test), requiring reconsideration under correct law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Weaver’s injury "arose out of and in the course of employment" | Weaver: accident occurred while returning forklift after work; even if rule‑breaking, recovery available where action reasonably related to job | Seegars: joyriding/ thrill‑seeking bore no relation to job and was an extraordinary deviation, so injury not compensable | Remanded: Commission’s findings conflicted (said both that Weaver may have performed work tasks and that he joyroad), and it misapplied law; factual & legal issues must be redetermined under proper standards |
| Whether the Commission improperly applied a negligence/fault analysis | Weaver: Commission impermissibly relied on his alleged negligence/recklessness to deny benefits (fault irrelevant except statutorily) | Seegars: Commission relied on causal disconnect from employment, not negligence per se | Remanded: Court found Commission’s characterization ("unreasonable and reckless") risked importing fault analysis and required clarification under workers’ comp standards |
| Proper application of "incidental activities" / Arp framework | Weaver: even incidental deviations can be compensable if reasonably related to accomplishing work | Seegars: activity was too remote from customary practice and an extraordinary deviation under Arp | Remanded: Commission must explicitly apply Arp/precedent to determine whether activity was a compensable incidental act or an unreasonable deviation |
| Whether remand or affirmance is appropriate | Weaver: Commission’s errors justify remand for clear findings and correct legal application | Seegars: findings supported by competent evidence; affirm | Remanded: appellate court vacated award and instructed Commission to make internally consistent factual findings and apply correct legal standards (no view on ultimate merits) |
Key Cases Cited
- Teague v. Atlantic Co., 213 N.C. 546 (1938) (denial of compensation where employee engaged in thrill‑seeking conduct unrelated to job)
- Rivera v. Trapp, 135 N.C. App. 296 (1999) (compensation allowed where employee used forklift to accomplish job despite not being in job description)
- Arp v. Parkdale Mills Inc., 356 N.C. 657 (2003) (adopting framework distinguishing direct job duties from incidental activities; unreasonable/extraordinary deviations not compensable)
- Hoyle v. Isenhour Brick & Tile Co., 306 N.C. 248 (1982) (defines "arising out of" vs "in the course of" and notes thrill‑seeking bearing no relation to job removes employee from scope)
- Robbins v. Nicholson, 281 N.C. 234 (1972) (injury arises out of employment when it is a natural and probable consequence or incident of employment)
- Ballenger v. ITT Grinnell Indus. Piping, Inc., 320 N.C. 155 (1987) (award must be set aside where Commission acted under misapprehension of law; remand required for application of correct standard)