Pendergrass v. Card Care, Inc.
Supreme Court of North Carolina
1Opinion of the Court
WEBB, Justice.
We consider first the case against the defendants Gibson and Lake. Gibson and Lake were employees of Texfi, as was Mr. Pendergrass, at the time of the accident. Ordinarily, the plaintiffs’ exclusive remedy would be a claim pursuant to the Workers’ Compensation Act and they would not have a claim against Gibson or Lake in tort. Strickland v. King, 293 N.C. 731, 239 S.E.2d 243 (1977).
The plaintiffs contend that they have claims against Gibson and Lake under Pleasant v. Johnson, 312 N.C. 710, 325 S.E.2d 244 (1985), which held that there is an exception to the exclusivity rule as to…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Sutton v. DukeSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1970
- Woodson v. RowlandSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1991
- Pleasant v. JohnsonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1985
- Rawlings v. D. M. Oliver, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1979
- Tift v. Forage King Industries, Inc.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1982
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by49 opinions
- Payne v. Galen Hospital Corp.Texas Supreme Court · 2000
- Mickles v. Duke Power Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1995
- Suburban Hospital, Inc. v. KirsonCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2000
- Fagundes v. Ammons Dev. Grp., Inc.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 2017
- Regan v. Amerimark Building Products, Inc.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1995
44 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.