Little v. Omega Meats I, Inc.

I, INC. impossibility under North attempt Carolina law. The crime of requires specifically underly- that the actor intend to commit the ing Hageman, offense. See 307 N.C. at 296 S.E.2d at 441. It is logically impossible, therefore, person specifically for a intend to commit a form of have, element, murder which does not as an specific intent to kill.

Coble, 351 N.C. at 527 S.E.2d at 48.

While neither conspiracy Lea nor Coble addresses to commit felony murder, extending particularly logic of Lea could lead one conspiracy felony to conclude that to commit murder logical is also a impossibility, given requirement specific conspiracy intent for requisite felony and the lack of such Nevertheless, intent for murder. prior Supreme case, North Carolina Gibbs, Court State 1, 51-52, explicitly (1993), upheld conspiracy felony commit murder Lea, conviction. And because a Court of Appeals case, Gibbs, could not overrule and neither Lea nor Coble directly conspiracy felony addressed murder, to commit Gibbs con- trols, and this Court is constrained to hold that Defendant’s convic- conspiracy felony tion of do, to commit murder must I stand. how- ever, respectfully urge grant Court to review on this issue, requested by if Defendant, give greater clarity on the law controlling this issue.

TERI HARVEY LITTLE and FRANK DONALD Plaintiffs v. OMEGA LITTLE, JR., MEATS A. THOMAS and RONALD LEE I, INC., Defendants CASSANO, SMITH,

No. COA04-154 (Filed 2005) 19 July Employer Employee— negligent and and retention— directed of care— verdict — contractor — cause by directing

The trial court did not err a verdict for defendant company president and its in an negligent hiring action for retention contractor salesman who was employed by company defendant to sell meat door to door and assaulted, kidnapped, who broke into home and robbed them neighborhood company after he drove into the in a care, truck because defendants did not owe OF APPEALS IN THE COURT LITTLE v. OMEGA (2005)] 583 N.C.

[171 previously been con- salesman had knew the though even (1) where: robbery kidnapping, and law victed of common to be since legal right he had a place in a where was not salesman plaintiffs did and plaintiffs’ home; (2) the salesman into he broke relationship with of the salesman’s as a direct result not meet salesman; plaintiff’s home as did not enter since he defendants direct, potential bene- indirect or received no and defendants plaintiffs. and “meeting” between the salesman from the fit to breached a arguendo that defendants Assuming was salesman, in were and injuries the sales- because proximate cause of not a his criminal did not advance with defendants man’s association any manner. endeavor in

Judge dissenting. Geek August by plaintiffs judgment from entered Appeal County Superior Court. Heard E. in Guilford Judge Michael Helms Appeals September the Court of V K. Schoch K. Schoch IV and Arch Schoch Arch

Schoch and plaintiff-appellants. Gsteiger Gsteiger, by Urs R. P.L.L.C. Horton and defendant- appellees. STEELMAN,Judge. single-family in a resi- and Teri Little resided

Plaintiffs Frank midday on 23 March City About in the of Greensboro. dence take a walk in a the residence to work and Teri had left Frank was at gone from their resi- nearby the Littles were neighborhood. While neighborhood, Littles’ drove into the dence, (Smith) defendant Smith parked the truck Omega Meats truck. Smith operating refrigerated proceeded and to driveway neighbor, Littles’ next door of the was While Smith of the Littles’ residence. into the side entrance break was and went inside. She to the home inside, still Teri returned twenty Approximately by Smith, handcuffed and robbed. attacked then further later, also returned home. Smith thirty minutes Frank him with a attempted asphyxiate Teri, Frank, and bound assaulted sexually Teri, Frank freed him- assault plastic bag. began Smith As knife, during over the struggle knife. A ensued grabbed and self of his Realizing that one to flee from the home. Teri was able which and drove the Littles’ residence escaped, Smith fled from victims had THE APPEALS IN COURT OF I, LITTLE v. OMEGA subsequently Meats convicted of Omega off truck. Smith felony assault, robbery, and felonious kidnapping, several counts of App. 107, entering. breaking and See State S.E.2d 830 products (Omega) meat

Defendant Meats Inc. sells using independent Thomas A. salesmen. Defendant Omega. president refrig- is the Salesmen rent (Cassano) Cassano daily basis, attempt to sell con- erated on a trucks day, signed door. At meats to door to the end customers^ rental, pays Omega for meat sold. salesman the truck warehouse, supervised Omega’s Once a leaves he is not salesman develops Omega. controlled Each salesman his own customers existing and where to drive the truck to service his customers decides acquire attempt new customers. beginning for work Omega Smith first worked in 1997.Prior to as salesman, Omega performed a driver’s contractor Smith, background perform a criminal licence check on but did performed, it background check. Had a criminal check been would convictions, including drug that Smith had numerous revealed period Omega, as for During offenses and assault. his first a salesman robbery kidnapping, of law and Smith was convicted common and prison Following served an active sentence of months. Smith’s as an prison, Omega he went back to work for inde- release from pendent during second term with salesman. It was Smith’s Omega that the incident with the Littles occurred. February damages 2002, seeking

This action was initiated on punitive personal injury damages Omega, for and from defendants events March 2001. arising and Smith out of the of 23 The Cassano hiring Omega were for and against claims and Cassano trial as a This matter on for be- retention of Smith salesman. came August jury E. and a at the fore the Honorable Michael Helms County. plain- Superior of Civil Court for Guilford session against Omega tiffs’ and Cassano were severed claims only Omega and against against the and the claims claims of Judge Helms. At conclusion were tried before Cassano plaintiffs’ evidence, Omega and moved defendants Cassano pursuant 50(a) Rule North Carolina Rules directed verdict court granted, This and the trial dis- of Civil Procedure. motion The trial court plaintiffs’ claims and Cassano. against missed appeal. pursuant 54(b) immediate judgment to Rule certified its appeal. Plaintiffs

In assignment argue sole error the trial directing court erred in verdict favor of defendants and presented Cassano because the evidence was sufficient for the case to be submitted to the on the issue of defendants’ retaining disagree. Smith. We A motion for 1A-1, directed verdict under G.S. 50(a) Rule tests the sufficiency legal jury. evidence to take the case ruling verdict, on defendant’s motion for directed the trial court plaintiff’s true, must take considering plaintiff’s evidence as evi- dence in the light most favorable to him giving him the bene- every fit of reasonable inference. Defendant’s motion directed appears, verdict should be denied “unless it as a matter law, recovery plaintiff upon that a cannot be had reasonably view of the facts which the evidence tends to estab- principles lish.” Given these it is clear that a defendant in a negligence action is not entitled to a directed verdict unless the plaintiff failed, law, has as a matter of to establish the elements negligence. actionable McMurray Surety Asso., Federal Sav. & App. 729, Loan (citations omitted). “Negligence has proper been defined as the failure to performance exercise care in the legal of a which the defendant owed the under the cir- cumstances surrounding them. The traditional elements of actionable negligence legal duty are the existence of a obligation, or breach of duty, proximate that cause and actual loss or damage.” 731, Id. at 348 162, S.E.2d agree

We with relationship that Smith’s with independent that of an employee. contractor and not an “Generally, employs independent one who contractor is not liable for the inde- pendent Kinsey Spann, App. contractor’s v. 370, 374, 139N.C. [acts].” 487, (2000). However, 533 S.E.2d 491 in certain limited situations an may employer be held liable for negligence independent the of its contractor. Such a upon claim is not based liability, vicarious but against employer rather is a direct claim upon the based the action- employer able of the negligently party. in hiring a third Id. 375, 491-92, at citing 533 S.E.2d at Rowland, 330, Woodsonv. 329 N.C. 352, 222, party 407 S.E.2d (1991) (“The employs 235 that an inde- pendent responsibility contractor has a continuing to ensure that ade- quate safety precautions employer’s liability are taken. . . . The duty breach of this ‘is direct and ”). plain- not derivative ....’ Because against tiff’s claim, claim is a direct legal duty there must be a 587

IN THE OF APPEALS COURT LITTLE v. OMEGA App. 583 N.C. injured party establish the by employer order to

owed the the duty hiring. then the negligent claim Once that established prevail in a plaintiff prove four additional elements to must independent neg- acted “(1) retention case: the contractor hiring, as mani- ligently; incompetent he was at the time of the (2) negli- by previous specific acts of fested inherent unfitness or either constructive, employer notice, either gence; (3) the had actual incompetence; plaintiffs injury was the the incompetence.” App. 370, Kinsey Spann, result v. of this 377, 487, citing Bass, 587, N.C. (2000), 493 Medlin v. 327 533 S.E.2d 591, 460, dealing negli- (1990). 462 Most of our cases 398 S.E.2d independent upon the gent turned third hiring of employer notice element, whether the had actual constructive Kinsey, 139 incompetence the contractor. N.C. App. notice of 370, (holding 533 S.E.2d 487 defendant had no her 330, nephew’s incompetence Woodson, N.C. removal); tree 329 407 have notice of (holding S.E.2d 222 that contractor did not Medlin, practices cave-in); a trench 327 subcontractor’s which led to system N.C. that school did 587, (holding 398 S.E.2d defendant principal’s pedophilic tendencies). Since these have notice of question, signifi- do cases turned on the notice not contain duty by employer plaintiff. cant the to the discussion of owed duty However, that must be a other cases make it clear there employer support in order an action for owed Page Sloan, 697, negligent hiring. leading In the case of v. 702, 189, 2d, Hotels, Am. (1972) (citing Jur. Motels 190 S.E.2d the “duties thus 81), and Restaurants Court stated that § innkeeper ‘are imposed upon protection guests his non- for the liability ground on that delegable, and cannot be avoided their ” performance was entrusted to an contractor.’ stated in cases where the con- Kinsey, this Court work, inherently dangerous in ultra-hazardous or engages tractor safety non-delegable “the has a others.” citing Canady 491, at S.E.2d at Kinsey, 139 N.C. McLeod, owed

The nature and extent of the injured parties negligent in cases has not been described with hiring Carolina to date. However: great precision in the case law of North theory jurisdictions accepting have Most employees duty competent employer’s to select stated that an public into who comes con- member of the extends employment tact with the Thus, situation. courts have found lia- bility employers in general public cases where invite the onto the premises, require employees business to visit residences or employment commentator, analyzing establishments. One requisite employment connection between situa- in negligent hiring cases, tions noted three common factors underlying upholding duty parties: most case law a to third (1) employee plaintiff and the places must have been in where right each had a to be wrongful occurred; when the act (2) the plaintiff employee must have met the as a direct result of the employment; must have received some ben- efit, only potential even if indirect, meeting from the employee plaintiff. and the

Cindy Haerle, M. 68 Minn. L. Rev. 1308-09, MINNESOTA Employer Liability DEVELOPMENTS: the Criminal Acts Employees Negligent Hiring Theory: Under Ponticas v. K.M.S. (1984) (citation Investments omitted) (emphasis added). Courts in jurisdictions other generally, though exclusively, declined to employers hold liable for the acts of their contractors or employees under the negligent hiring doctrine of or retention when any one of proven. these three factors was not Id. See also McLean v. Kirby Co., 490 (N.D., 1992);Baugher N.W.2d229 Hattersley v. A. & Sons, Inc., (Ind. App., N.E.2d Ct. 1982); Parry v. Company, Davidson-Paxon (Ga. App., S.E.2d 59 Ct. 1952); Max, Va. (Va. Ct., only 48 Cir. Cir. 1999).It is Goforth Office after a has established that the defendant owed a of care that the trial necessary court considers the other elements to estab- lish a claim negligent hiring or retention of an con- tractor. See 68 Minn. L. 1308,supra Rev. (“Thus, to be liable the plaintiff duty must owe the care.”). first In the instant place case Smith was not in a where he had a legal right plaintiffs’ to be since he broke in home; plain- Smith and tiffs did not meet as a direct result of relationship Smiths’ defendants, since he did not enter salesman; home as a finally, benefit, direct, defendants received no potential, indirect or tragic “meeting” from the plaintiffs. between Smith and We have authority found no in North suggesting Carolina that defendants plaintiffs duty owed facts, of care on these and we hold fact none existed. employers

We refuse to make public insurers to the large at imposing legal employers on for victims of their IN APPEALS THE COURT OF I, v. OMEGA MEATS INC. LITTLE (2005)] [171 employ- relationship to the intentional torts that bear no contractors’ the against note because this is a direct action ment. We that the would be employer, purposes appeal the of this the result inde- employee of an had of defendants instead same if Smith been same pendent perpetrated could have the exact contractor. Smith manner, and with plaintiffs, in same against crimes these the exact selling Omega’s success, day of on a that he was not identical chances driving vehicle. Omega’s meats and plaintiffs plaintiffs care, not owe a of

Because did grounded negligent legal against Omega had cause action no of the held, must hold that Having retention. so we further hiring or Therefore, applies the trial reasoning to defendant Cassano. same pur- for directed verdict properly granted court defendants’ motion Our 50 of North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure. suant to Rule the employers’ interpreted limiting duties as holding should be that are hiring or claims to duties parties retention third required, however, is a nexus between non-delegable. What is injury. employment relationship and the plaintiffs duty of

Assuming arguendo that defendants did owe evidence, taken care, we further hold there insufficient any on the plaintiffs, prove that light most favorable to injuries. part proximate cause of defendants was the in natural and continuous a cause which “Proximate cause is cause, produced new sequence, unbroken injuries would not plaintiff’s injuries, and without which ordinary pru- person occurred, and one which result, reasonably or con- that such a could have foreseen dence probable under all injurious nature, was sequences generally of a Thus, is axiomatic that they as existed.” it the facts foreseeability. requires cause App. 1, 7-8, 392 S.E.2d Skinner, 99 N.C.

Johnson v. “it that was foreseeable omitted). argue Plaintiffs (internal citations recent, person with his as sending such as to defendants violence, propensity into residences long, well as record sup- risk harm.” In likely would create unreasonable could and Supreme Court port cite North Dakota this contention Co., (N.D., 1992). While Kirby N.W.2d case of McLean sending Smith into may in their be assertion correct harm, foreseeably risk of an unreasonable could create residences defendants’ foreseeability harm insufficient unless of a risk of negligent hiring or retention of Smith in actually some manner injury question. caused the McLean,

In the victim apartment “let Molachek into her demonstrate vacuum cleaner. brought Molachek also [defendant’s] knives, provided by with him a set of distributor, as a ‘door opener’ or ‘gift offering’ for allowing the in-home demonstration. After beginning demonstration, Molachek used the knives in assaulting raping McLean, 490 N.W.2d at In [the victim].” McLean, independent defendant’s contractor was invited into the vic- tim’s home as a direct position representative result of his aas defendant. Further, accomplished he rape by the assault and utilizing provided knives to him the sup- defendant. The facts in McLean port finding proximate cause arising employment out of the independent relationship. contractor This is not true in the instant above, case. As though discussed Smith was driving Omega truck, his association with defendants did not advance his criminal endeavor in manner. The same result would have occurred had he driving not been an Omega truck.

Therefore, arguendo even assuming that defendants negli- were gent in hiring was not the cause of plaintiffs’ injuries. correctly The trial granted court defendants’ motion for directed assignment verdict. This of error is without merit.

AFFIRMED.

Judge CALABRIAconcurs.

Judge GEER dissents.

GEER, Judge, dissenting. question The presented by fundamental this case is whether may defendants be held liable for the independent torts of their con tractor, Ron Smith. While rule in North Carolina “is that or contractee is not liable for the independ torts of an ent contractor performance committed in the of the contracted work,” Page Sloan, v. App. 433, 12 N.C. 439, 813, 183 S.E.2d 817 (1971), aff'd, (1972), Supreme S.E.2d 189 Court party has held that contractually third injured related to and “[a] incompetent unqualified may pro against employed ceed one who contractor on the THE OF APPEALS

IN COURT v. LITTLE OMEGA Woodson v.

theory negligently was made.” the selection 222, Rowland, permit the evidence was sufficient to I believe he because negligently defendants selected Ron Smith find that door in residen- unqualified going to serve a salesman door to as robbery, law given tial his convictions common neighborhoods by a possession a firearm degree kidnapping, and unlawful second directing a therefore, would, felon. I reverse the trial court’s order reason, I in defendants’ favor. For that dissent. verdict Page Sloan, 281 N.C. Court in Woodsoncited allowing as claim support S.E.2d Page, Court held that respect contractors. knew, should defendants or in the exercise due care “[i]f independent competent was to do known, that not [the contractor] was a [independent negligence such work and if the contractor’s] tes- proximate explosion ensuing plaintiff’s the and of cause of death would Id. at at 193. tate, defendants be liable.” 190 S.E.2d later, upon underlying years language this relied Ten Court question Page the Appeals “controlling” Court decision in any as on of hiring of an negligent for the “whether there is cause of action Jackson, 275, 277, 291 independent contractor.” Deitz quoted: S.E.2d The Court liability prescribed employer for to relieve an condition “[A] by employed him independent acts of negligent contractor the competent a have due care to secure that he shall exercised is employer Therefore, appears if the for the work. it that contractor have knew, by might or the exercise of reasonable care either qualified to properly the was not contractor ascertained work, acts may held liable the undertake the he be ...” of the contractor. App. at 277-78, (quoting Page,

Id. 291 S.E.2d at 284-85 at employer of 817). Deitz, at the Court then held that S.E.2d liability injury to “may subject to done a contractor be [employer’s] in hir- plaintiff proximate a a as result work.” independent perform ing an contractor to [the contracted-for] at Id. at already authority, I believe that courts

Based on employers independent contrac- duty part on a established nois majority opinion’s conclusion that there tors and that THE IN COURT OF APPEALS a this case—as matter of law—cannot be reconciled with this authority. Woodson,Page, Deitz, plaintiff may Under and establish a claim of negligent hiring of an proving contractor (1) qualified competent per- contractor was not or work, form the (2) contracted the defendant knew or should have qualified known that the was compe- or tent, harmed as cause of the lack qualification incompetence. elements,

In order appropriate to flesh out these it is to look to (Second) the Restatement by 411 (1965), adopted Torts which was § both the Appeals Page. Court and the Court of That provides: section of the Restatement subject liability physical

An per- harm to third sons caused his employ failure to exercise care to reasonable competent and careful contractor (a) to do work which will physical involve a risk of harm skillfully carefully done, unless it is perform any (b) which the owes to third persons.

Id. The explain comments to the Restatement words ‘com- “[t]he petent and careful possesses contractor’ denote a contractor who knowledge, skill, experience, equipment and available which a rea- sonable man would realize that a contractor must have in order to do employed the work which he is to do without creating unreasonable injury others, risk possesses personal to and who also charac- equally necessary." teristics which are Id. (emphasis added). cmt. a stresses, however, liability The Restatement exist, that for it is “necessary quality that harm shall result from some in the contractor which made it negligent for the to entrust the work to him.” Id. cmt. b. holding showing that a of these elements is not sufficient in separate “duty,”

the absence of a showing majority of a overlooks analysis duty Court’s of when a is owed. In Mullis v. Co., Monroe Oil 505 S.E.2d 131 (1998), the Court held: duty A legal person is owed whenever one is circumstances placed position in every such a another that one of [towards] ordinary recognize sense who did think would at once that if he ordinary did not use care and skill in his own conduct with regard injury danger he would cause to the to those circumstances Every person property or of the other. man is in bound to reasonably prudent use care and skill in his conduct wherever the person recognize in his shoes would unreasonable risk to others triggers from failure to use such care. Risk-creation behavior thus . . . where the risk is both unreasonable and foreseeable. eye vig- danger orbit of the as disclosed to the of reasonable [T]he duty. ilance the orbit of the [is] 204-05, quotation (internal

Id. at 505 S.E.2d at 137 citations and marks showing A that a omitted). arises based on evidence defend- [plaintiff], anyone similarly ant recognized “should have or situ- injured by might ated be their conduct.” Id. at 505 S.E.2d at 137. analysis directly parallels negligent hiring This the elements for Woodson,Page, Deitz, set out in and the Restatement without fur- majority’s showing. holding ther The that there must be “a nexus employment relationship injury” goes between the and the to the question foreseeability or, words, in of the of the risk other whether contractor knew should have injury known that the contractor created a risk of similarly incompetence or others situated because of his qualifications precisely Woodson,Page, set out in lack of test — Dietz, and the Restatement. provides The Restatement as an illustration: Company pianos plan. A the installment It sells on employs Company, collecting agent, unpaid the B to collect the Company pianos. installments on these The A knows that the B Company’s employees quar- rough are and violent and addicted to Company The A instructs reling with the customers its clients. Company unpaid installments. The B the B to collect C’s Company D, employees, gets to do so. D into an sends one of its unjustifiably argument with C and in the course of it knocks C seriously subject liability him. A down and harms to C. a, added). This illustration confirms that (emphasis Id. cmt. illus. liability principles apply to an contractor’s these negligence. I believe that this factual intentional torts as well as to his closely presented appeal and it analogous scenario is to that verdict. granting demonstrates that the trial court erred directed case, plaintiffs had been In this offered evidence that Ron Smith robbery degree kidnapping of common law and second convicted APPEALS IN THE COURT OF LITTLE OMEGA only these convic- defendants, prior knew not

that only recently from been released tions, also that Smith had but hiring, defendants learned prison.1 Further, following Smith’s Meats, defendant Omega for that girlfriend, who also worked Smith’s by a felon. He was arrested possession of a firearm was convicted Omega Meats truck. charge driving while an on that convictions, despite he testified that these Defendant Cassano prod- Omega Meats independent contractor to sell hired Smith as an Salesmen like driving Omega while Meats truck. ucts door-to-door a.m. to 11:00 pick up Omega Meats truck from 8:00 Smith would p.m. 6:00 the truck at some time between a.m. and then return “cold-call,” explained going the salesmen p.m. 11:00 Cassano that Smith “was acknowledged at residences.” He “from door to door at residences” and that he sold and going calling to be door-to-door products Omega Omega using Meat truck. marketed juror could find that a convicted rob- I believe that a reasonable unlawfully firearm while kidnapper also carried a ber and —who necessary personal qualities making possess the working not—did jury neighborhoods. If the found in residential cold calls door-to-door competent qualified to be a door-to-door sales- that Smith was not man, sufficient to establish defend- then evidence is also incompetence. Accordingly, I believe knowledge of that ants’ actual find is sufficient to allow a defendants this evidence selecting Smith as an contractor. prox- plaintiffs were harmed as a remaining issue is whether negligence. Plaintiffs’ evidence established imate cause of that morning and that the Omega checked out an Meats truck Smith mid-day using at while Smith was still break-in occurred prove have contended that did not Meats truck. Defendants was in did not offer evidence that Smith causation because the break-in. Plaintiff Frank Little using fact the truck at the time of shortly pulled driveway, testified, however, that when he into his pickup home, he noticed a white truck before he was attacked his neigh- it in his logo had the Meats on with a freezer that driveway. running. Little was familiar engine The truck’s bor’s previously come to his door Omega Meats because salesmen had working Omega while Meats the first 1. Smith was convicted of those crimes of the convictions when Smith did Defendant Cassano testified that he learned time. not return to have learned that Smith had been convicted check, performed record he would also work. Had Cassano a criminal charges, five of five assault on a female exposure simple charge. charges, and one assault indecent 595 (2005)] 583 [171 products. addition, plaintiffs In offered evidence offering to sell meat impounded by police from the Omega that an Meats truck helpful that this scene. While it would have been to have evidence provided Smith, jury truck was in fact the truck a could infer from using the evidence offered that Smith was Meats truck when he the break-in. committed injuries question plaintiffs resulting remains whether the reasonably

from the break-in and attack were foreseeable to defend- only noted, exceptional cases, ants. As our Court has “it is foreseeability injury, in which reasonable minds cannot differ as to of proximate that a court should decide cause as a matter of law.” Light Co., 400, 403, & Williams v. Carolina Power 296 N.C. (1979). S.E.2d I do believe falls into the not that this case exceptional category.

Although respect proximate the critical issue with cause is the foreseeability plaintiffs’ injuries, require the law does not precise injury be foreseeable to Hairston v. defendants. Equip. Co., 227, 233-34, Tank & Alexander Instead, test is whether the risk cause “[t]he necessarily actually injury, precise in which it form occurs, foresight is within the reasonable of the defendant.” Williams, N.C. at 250 S.E.2d at 258. jury case, light I that a conclude—in believe could robbery, kidnapping, possession of a

Smith’s convictions for it was (the using Omega truck) firearm latter while Meats —that reasonably foreseeable to defendants that there was a risk that Smith breaking would use the Meats truck as a cover while into day, during homes at a time when most homeowners would be away Co., from their homes. See Read v. Scott Fetzer 990 S.W.2d person ordinary anticipate (Tex. 1998) (“A intelligence should previously engaged that an unsuitable dealer had in sexual mis [who pose would a risk of harm” in connection with door-to-door conduct] sales.). While the could also decide that the risk was not fore experi seeable based either on the convictions or defendants’ actual ence with I do not believe that a court can decide the foresee ability given law issue as matter of the evidence this record. presents recognize troubling policy

I that this case issue. liability hiring despite Imposing on defendants for Smith his criminal employers chilling record risks defendants and other indi- ability employ- viduals with criminal records. Without the to obtain OF APPEALS IN THE COURT v. P.H. GLATFELTER CO. GOODSON Nevertheless, nearly impossible. under merit, becomes rehabilitation only problem if the conviction Carolina, hiring the law of North position. example, few for the For renders the individual unsuitable person drug offenses would be question that a convicted of would I position providing access to narcotics. believe unsuitable for a require, permit, sufficient to but not the evidence in this case is position unsupervised for an that Smith was unsuitable to conclude as a door-to-door salesman. Employee-Plaintiff ex and N.C. DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE,

JAMES GOODSON, Intervenor P. H. GLATFELTER CO., rel. JAMES Commissioner, LONG, Bankruptcy M. Trustee LANGDON COOPER, Employer-Defendant; Defendant and NORTH CAROLINA SELF-INSURANCE RFS INC., ECUSTA, Defendant GUARANTY ASSOCIATION,

No. COA04-886 (Filed 2005) 19 July continuing Compensation— 1. Workers’ sale business — jurisdiction of Industrial Commission paper mill and workers’ com- An who had sold its employee’s work-related accident pensation liabilities after jurisdiction subject of the Industrial continued to be regard to that accident. Commission Compensation— jurisdiction of Industrial Com- 2. Workers’ by of conduct mission — not divested course authority supported argument that a of the cited None by Department of Insurance or the course of conduct juris- of the Commission could divest the Commission Industrial compensation statute in a workers’ diction conferred on it Moreover, that had sold its business. involving case employer, Glatfelter, was parties stipulated had that the provisions Compensation Act. bound of the Workers’ authority Compensation— of Industrial Commis- 3. Workers’ agreement transferring obligations sion — validity Adjudication agreement transferring of an of the along paper with a mill fell compensation liabilities workers’ authority Industrial Commission. delegated within the N.C.G.S. 97-6. §

Case Details

Case Name: Little v. Omega Meats I, Inc.

Court Name: Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Date Published: Jul 19, 2005

Citation: 615 S.E.2d 45

Docket Number: COA04-154

Court Abbreviation: N.C. Ct. App.