Carrick v. Britt Motorsports

CourtNorth Carolina Industrial Commission
DecidedMarch 8, 2010
DocketI.C. NO. 762098.
StatusPublished

This text of Carrick v. Britt Motorsports (Carrick v. Britt Motorsports) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering North Carolina Industrial Commission primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Carrick v. Britt Motorsports, (N.C. Super. Ct. 2010).

Opinion

***********
The undersigned have reviewed the prior Opinion and Award based upon the record of the proceedings before former Deputy Commissioner Rowell and the briefs and arguments of the parties. The appealing parties have not shown good grounds to reconsider the evidence, receive further evidence, or rehear the parties or their representatives. Having reviewed the competent evidence of record, the Full Commission adopts the Opinion and Award of Deputy Commissioner Rowell with minor modifications.

***********
The Full Commission finds as fact and concludes as matters of law the following, which were entered into by the parties at the hearing before the Deputy Commissioner as: *Page 2

STIPULATIONS
1. It is stipulated that all parties are properly before the North Carolina Industrial Commission;

2. At all times relevant to this claim, an employment relationship existed between Plaintiff and Employer-Defendant.

3. Gallagher-Bassett Services, Inc. was the servicing agent for Westport Insurance Company, the carrier on the risk for Employer-Defendant.

4. The parties are subject to and bound by the provisions of the North Carolina Workers' Compensation Act.

5. There are no issues as to misjoinder or nonjoinder of parties;

6. At the hearing before the Deputy Commissioner, the parties agreed to bifurcate this matter for hearing, and limit the issues of this hearing to whether Plaintiff was acting in the course and scope of his employment at the time of his injury by accident.

7. The parties stipulated into evidence Stipulated Exhibit #1, as referenced in the table of contents, including the Pre-Trial Agreement, as modified and initialed by the parties.

***********
Based upon all of the competent credible evidence in the record, the Full Commission makes the following:

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Plaintiff was employed by Defendant-Employer from November 2004 until April 23, 2005, as a motorcycle parts and accessories salesperson. His job duties required him to be present at the dealership to respond to telephone, Internet and "in person" inquiries about part and accessory sales. *Page 3

2. Defendant-Employer began as a family business 1976 in Wilmington, North Carolina. Scott Britt purchased the business from his father in 1984 and operates three dealerships in Wilmington, Jacksonville, and Morehead City, North Carolina. Defendant-Employer sells thousands of motorcycles, ATVs and other items every year. Its inventory consists of Yamaha and Kawasaki motorcycles and custom motorcycles which it builds from the ground up or by modifying stock motorcycles.

3. On Saturday, April 23, 2005, Plaintiff worked his normal hours at Defendant-Employer' Wilmington, North Carolina dealership and clocked out at approximately 5:30 PM as indicated by his electronic timecard.

4. Plaintiff drove home from work at Defendant-Employer riding the custom motorcycle customized by his employer. Scott Britt testified, and the Full Commission finds as fact, that Plaintiff was not given permission or instructed to take the custom motorcycle from Defendant-Employer for any purpose.

5. Debbie Britt, Finance Director for Defendant-Employer, and sister of the owner, Scott Britt, testified that she, Jackie Anderson and Jody Stanley had standing plans to meet Plaintiff and Lisa Gibson at T-Bones later that evening to have drinks and listen to bands inside the bar. This was a purely social activity and without any business purpose. She spoke with Plaintiff via telephone at approximately 7:00 PM on April 23, 2005, to confirm these plans.

6. Jackie Anderson testified that the purpose of the meeting at T-Bones bar was to listen to bands. Anderson's testimony corroborates Debbie Britt's testimony.

7. On April 23, 2005, Plaintiff left his residence driving the custom motorcycle owned by Defendant-Employer with Lisa Gibson as his passenger, and collided with another *Page 4 vehicle. He sustained serious injuries in the collision, including skull fractures and the loss of both eyes and a leg. Gibson was killed.

8. The overwhelming weight of the evidence indicates that Plaintiff intended to purchase for his personal use the custom motorcycle that he was riding at the time of his accident. This evidence comprises the testimony of witnesses Scott Britt, Debbie Britt, George Reaves and Defendants' Exhibits 1-4 which show that Plaintiff had applied for and been approved for a loan to finance the purchase of the motorcycle at issue.

9. On April 13, 2007, Plaintiff filed Form 18 alleging that his injuries resulting from the April 23, 2005, motorcycle accident arose out of and in the course of his employment by Defendant-Employer.

10. While Defendant-Employer was aware of the motorcycle accident, Scott and Debbie Britt testified that Defendant-Employer did not learn of Plaintiff's allegations that the injuries he sustained as the result of the motorcycle accident were work-related, or that Plaintiff was initiating a workers' compensation claim until its receipt of the letter and Industrial Commission form almost two years after the injury. Plaintiff offered no evidence to rebut Defendants' assertion that he failed to give timely notice.

11. The Full Commission finds as fact that Plaintiff is without reasonable excuse for failing to provide timely notice of his alleged work-related injuries. The uncontested evidence indicates that Plaintiff was in close contact with his employers during the months following his accident as they visited him in the hospital and at his brother's home, and allowed him to be present at the dealership. Plaintiff had ample opportunity to give notice and was not prevented from doing so for any reason. *Page 5

12. Defendants contend that they were materially prejudiced by Plaintiff's failure to provide timely notice in as much as they were deprived of the ability to identify and produce witnesses and documentary evidence due to the passage of time.

13. Plaintiff testified that at the time of his accident he was in route to T-Bones bar so that he could display the custom motorcycle at a "biker appreciation" event and possibly attract a buyer for the mutual benefit of himself and his employer. The Full Commission finds that Plaintiff's testimony regarding his intentions is not credible for many reasons set forth more fully below.

14. Scott Britt testified in detail, and the Full Commission finds as fact, that Mr. Britt maintained strict control of marketing efforts at Defendant-Employer and that employees were not authorized to remove motorcycles from the premises for or otherwise engage in unauthorized marketing activity. This control was important to protect his well established reputation in the business and motorcycle communities, and to protect his brand. Mr. Britt did not direct, encourage or permit Plaintiff to travel to T-Bones for any purpose.

15. Scott Britt testified that some employees were permitted to test drive custom motorcycles as a normal part of the build process to identify and repair problems, or afterward in the event of a suspected problem. Plaintiff acknowledged in his hearing testimony and deposition testimony that his right to take custom motorcycles from the dealership was so limited. Plaintiff should not have been on the motorcycle at the time of the accident.

16.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

§ 97-2
North Carolina § 97-2(6)
§ 97-22
North Carolina § 97-22

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Carrick v. Britt Motorsports, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carrick-v-britt-motorsports-ncworkcompcom-2010.