The exclusivity provision of the North Carolina Workers’ Compensation Act (the “Act”) normally prevents an employee from suing his employer in civil court for work injuries. The employee is normally relegated to filing a workers’ compensation claim with the North Carolina Industrial Commission. However, the North Carolina Supreme Court has allowed an exception to the Act’s exclusivity provision in certain circumstances. Woodson v. Rowland, 329 N.C. 330, 407 S.E.2d 222 (1991). That narrow exception allows an employee to sue his employer in civil court if “an employer intentionally engages in misconduct knowing it is substantially certain to cause serious injury or death to employees and an employee is injured or killed by that misconduct . . .” Woodson, 329 N.C. at 340-41, 407 S.E.2d at 228. This exception has historically been strictly interpreted and very few, if any cases have ever met the Woodson standard.
Background of the Tyson v. ELG Utica Alloys Case
In Tyson v. ELG Utica Alloys, Inc., Slip Op. COA 24-470 (NC COA June 18, 2025), the NC Court of Appeals was again called upon to decide whether the facts of this case meet the Woodson standard. The deceased employee was killed by an explosive fire while operating a zirconium crusher at defendant-employer’s plant. Defendant-employer operated a facility that recycled metal used in the aerospace industry. Before the explosion in question, defendant-employer had a few relatively minor slow-burning zirconium fires at this same facility. Also, prior to the explosion, defendant-employer had been cited by government authorities for various safety violations, but none of these citations were related to zirconium. Following the fatal explosion, the NC OSHA issued additional citations relating to defendant-employer’s handling of zirconium and the crusher. The administratrix of the deceased employee’s estate filed a wrongful death complaint in civil court against defendant-employer asserting a Woodson claim.
Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, contending that the facts of this case did not meet the Woodson standard as a matter of law. The Superior Court Judge denied the defendant-employer’s motion for summary judgment, and the defendant-employer appealed to the Court of Appeals.
Why the Court of Appeals Rejected the Woodson Claim in Tyson
On appeal, the defendants admitted that their actions may have been negligent and may even have been grossly negligent, but contended that it was not enough to meet the Woodson standard. The Court cited to another Supreme Court case and said: “Simply having knowledge of some possibility, or even probability of injury or death, is not the same as knowledge of a substantial certainty of injury or death.” Whitaker v. Town of Scotland Neck, 357 N.C. 552, 558, 597 S.E.2d 665, 668-69 (emphasis added). The Court held that the plaintiff failed to present evidence to show that the defendant-employer’s conduct met the Woodson standard. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s denial of defendant-employer’s motion for summary judgment and directed the trial court to grant defendants’ motion for summary judgment. In doing this, the Court of Appeals continued the precedent in North Carolina of strictly and narrowly interpreting the Woodson decision.
Best Practices to Avoid Woodson Claims and Civil Liability
The Tyson decision reinforces the high bar North Carolina courts set for Woodson claims, but it also serves as a cautionary tale for employers. To avoid even the risk of such litigation, businesses should go beyond minimum compliance and proactively address known hazards. Employers should document safety protocols, provide regular training, and promptly respond to any incidents or near-misses. Importantly, they must not ignore patterns of risk, even if prior incidents seem minor. Demonstrating a consistent, good-faith effort to protect employees can help shield businesses from claims that their conduct was “substantially certain” to cause harm. In short, a strong safety culture is not just good practice, it’s a legal safeguard.
