Owens v. W.K. Deal Printing, Inc.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Owens v. W.K. Deal Printing, Inc.

453 S.E.2d 160, 339 N.C. 603, 1995 N.C. LEXIS 14

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedFebruary 10, 1995

Docket65A94

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 453 S.E.2d 160 (Owens v. W.K. Deal Printing, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Owens v. W.K. Deal Printing, Inc., 453 S.E.2d 160, 339 N.C. 603, 1995 N.C. LEXIS 14 (N.C. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

For the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion of Judge Wynn in this case, Owens v. W.K. Deal Printing, Inc., 113 N.C. App. 324, 328-32, 438 S.E.2d 440, 443-45 (1994), the decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed. To the extent that it may be read as implying that actions authorized under Woodson v. Rowland, 329 N.C. 330, 407 S.E.2d 222 (1991), seek recovery for “intentional torts” in the true sense of that term, we do not accept the reasoning of Judge Wynn’s dissent. We reemphasize that plaintiffs in Woodson actions need only establish that the employer intentionally engaged in misconduct and that the employer knew that such misconduct was “substantially certain” to cause serious injury or death and, thus, the conduct was “so egregious as to be tantamount to an intentional tort.” Pendergrass v. Card Care, Inc., 333 N.C. 233, 239, 424 S.E.2d 391, 395 (1993).

REVERSED.

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

PER CURIAM.

For the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion of Judge Wynn in this case, Owens v. W.K. Deal Printing, Inc., 113 N.C. App. 324, 328-32, 438 S.E.2d 440, 443-45 (1994), the decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed. To the extent that it may be read as implying that actions authorized under Woodson v. Rowland, 329 N.C. 330, 407 S.E.2d 222 (1991), seek recovery for “intentional torts” in the true sense of that term, we do not accept the reasoning of Judge Wynn’s dissent. We reemphasize that plaintiffs in Woodson actions need only establish that the employer intentionally engaged in misconduct and that the employer knew that such misconduct was “substantially certain” to cause serious injury or death and, thus, the conduct was “so egregious as to be tantamount to an intentional tort.” Pendergrass v. Card Care, Inc., 333 N.C. 233, 239, 424 S.E.2d 391, 395 (1993).

REVERSED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

453 S.E.2d 160, 339 N.C. 603, 1995 N.C. LEXIS 14, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/owens-v-wk-deal-printing-inc-nc-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack