Owens v. W.K. Deal Printing, Inc.
Cases that cite this one
5 later published cases cite this decision.
- Alford v. Catalytica Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (N.C. Ct. App. 2002)
- Lyles v. City of Charlotte (N.C. 1996)
- Keith v. U.S. Airways, Inc. (District Court, M.D. North Carolina 1998)
- Wiggins v. Pelikan, Inc. (N.C. Ct. App. 1999)
- Kolbinsky v. Paramount Homes, Inc. (N.C. Ct. App. 1997)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
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.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.