Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
12 North Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 1995–2025 5 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by North Carolina courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Pleasant v. Johnsongreen2 sentences2025One “exception arises when a co-employee acts in a willful, wanton, and reckless manner”; in such cases, “an injured plaintiff [may] seek recovery from the co-employee in a common law action.” Trivette v. Yount, 366 N.C. 303, 306 , 735 S.E.2d 306, 308 (2012) (citing Pleasant v. Johnson, 312 N.C. 710 , 716–17, 325 S.E.2d 244 , 2 In his amended complaint, Plaintiff also brought a Pleasant claim against Prime Demolition, asserting that Lester “engaged in willful, wanton, and reckless conduct” and that “his actions are therefore imputed to Defendant [Prime Demolition] under the principles of agenc 2025One “exception arises when a co-employee acts in a willful, wanton, and reckless manner”; in such cases, “an injured plaintiff [may] seek recovery from the co-employee in a common law action.” Trivette v. Yount, 366 N.C. 303, 306 , 735 S.E.2d 306, 308 (2012) (citing Pleasant v. Johnson, 312 N.C. 710 , 716–17, 325 S.E.2d 244 , 2 In his amended complaint, Plaintiff also brought a Pleasant claim against Prime Demolition, asserting that Lester “engaged in willful, wanton, and reckless conduct” and that “his actions are therefore imputed to Defendant [Prime Demolition] under the principles of agenc | 4 | 8 |
Echols v. Zarn, Inc.green2 sentences2023The trial court dismissed the plaintiff’s Pleasant claim at summary judgment and we affirmed, reasoning that “[e]ven if we assume that [the co-employee] knew that reaching under the safety gate could be dangerous, we do not believe this supports an inference that [the co-employee] intended that plaintiff be injured or that she was manifestly indifferent to the consequences of plaintiff reaching under the safety gate.” Id. at 376 , 448 S.E.2d at 296 . 2023The trial court dismissed the plaintiff’s Pleasant claim at summary judgment and we affirmed, reasoning that “[e]ven if we assume that [the co-employee] knew that reaching under the safety gate could be dangerous, we do not believe this supports an inference that [the co-employee] intended that plaintiff be injured or that she was manifestly indifferent to the consequences of plaintiff reaching under the safety gate.” Id. at 376 , 448 S.E.2d at 296 . | 2 | 2 |
Pendergrass v. Card Care, Inc.green2 sentences2023Our Supreme Court revisited the Pleasant exception in Pendergrass v. Card Care Inc., 333 N.C. 233 , 424 S.E.2d 391 (1993), where it held that two co-employees’ alleged negligence did not rise to the level of the negligence in Pleasant. 2023Our Supreme Court revisited the Pleasant exception in Pendergrass v. Card Care Inc., 333 N.C. 233 , 424 S.E.2d 391 (1993), where it held that two co-employees’ alleged negligence did not rise to the level of the negligence in Pleasant. | 1 | 5 |
Trivette v. Yountgreen2 sentences2025One “exception arises when a co-employee acts in a willful, wanton, and reckless manner”; in such cases, “an injured plaintiff [may] seek recovery from the co-employee in a common law action.” Trivette v. Yount, 366 N.C. 303, 306 , 735 S.E.2d 306, 308 (2012) (citing Pleasant v. Johnson, 312 N.C. 710 , 716–17, 325 S.E.2d 244 , 2 In his amended complaint, Plaintiff also brought a Pleasant claim against Prime Demolition, asserting that Lester “engaged in willful, wanton, and reckless conduct” and that “his actions are therefore imputed to Defendant [Prime Demolition] under the principles of agenc 2025One “exception arises when a co-employee acts in a willful, wanton, and reckless manner”; in such cases, “an injured plaintiff [may] seek recovery from the co-employee in a common law action.” Trivette v. Yount, 366 N.C. 303, 306 , 735 S.E.2d 306, 308 (2012) (citing Pleasant v. Johnson, 312 N.C. 710 , 716–17, 325 S.E.2d 244 , 2 In his amended complaint, Plaintiff also brought a Pleasant claim against Prime Demolition, asserting that Lester “engaged in willful, wanton, and reckless conduct” and that “his actions are therefore imputed to Defendant [Prime Demolition] under the principles of agenc | 1 | 2 |
Woodson v. Rowlandgreen2 sentences2024Woodson, 329 N.C. at 340-41 , 407 S.E.2d at 228 (employee can bring a suit at common law for employer forcing an employee to work in a trench not properly sloped nor reinforced with a trench box, which caved in and killed the employee); Pleasant, 312 N.C. at 713 , 325 S.E.2d at 247 (no allegations of “willful, wanton and reckless negligence” against a co-employee trigger the Pleasant exception). 2024Woodson, 329 N.C. at 340-41 , 407 S.E.2d at 228 (employee can bring a suit at common law for employer forcing an employee to work in a trench not properly sloped nor reinforced with a trench box, which caved in and killed the employee); Pleasant, 312 N.C. at 713 , 325 S.E.2d at 247 (no allegations of “willful, wanton and reckless negligence” against a co-employee trigger the Pleasant exception). | 1 | 2 |
Estate of Vaughn v. Pike Electric, LLCgreen2 sentences2023Opinion of the Court sufficient to state a Pleasant claim against his supervisor.3 In Vaughn, decedent worked as a groundman who assisted other employees working on overhead power distribution lines. 230 N.C. 2023Opinion of the Court sufficient to state a Pleasant claim against his supervisor.3 In Vaughn, decedent worked as a groundman who assisted other employees working on overhead power distribution lines. 230 N.C. | 1 | 2 |
Regan v. Amerimark Building Products, Inc.green2 sentences2023App. at 229 , 489 S.E.2d at 424-25 (holding there was no Pleasant claim when supervisory defendants instructed the seriously injured plaintiff to clean a working machine with an improperly removed guard despite a prior uncorrected serious OSHA violation for that exact issue); Pendergrass, 333 N.C. at 238 , 424 S.E.2d at 394 (holding the same on similar facts). 2023App. at 229 , 489 S.E.2d at 424-25 (holding summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff’s Pleasant claim was proper “even though the evidence here shows that both [supervisors] were aware that the coater was unguarded and required plaintiff to manually clean the coater”). | 1 | 1 |
Jones v. Willamette Industries, Inc.green2 sentences2016See, e.g., Jones v. Willamette Indus., Inc., 120 N.C.App. 591 , 596, 463 S.E.2d 294 , 297-98 (1995) (holding Pleasant claim not established where employee died while cleaning residue from boiler system at employer's plant in unsafe manner in accordance with co-workers' instructions because "although supervisory personnel at [employer] should have ensured that adequate and appropriate safety measures were in place, and being used ... this does not support an inference that they intended for [the decedent] to be injured, nor does it support an inference that they were manifestly indifferent to t 2016See, e.g., Jones v. Willamette Indus., Inc., 120 N.C.App. 591 , 596, 463 S.E.2d 294 , 297-98 (1995) (holding Pleasant claim not established where employee died while cleaning residue from boiler system at employer's plant in unsafe manner in accordance with co-workers' instructions because "although supervisory personnel at [employer] should have ensured that adequate and appropriate safety measures were in place, and being used ... this does not support an inference that they intended for [the decedent] to be injured, nor does it support an inference that they were manifestly indifferent to t | 1 | 1 |
Johnson v. Barnhill Contracting Co.green2 sentences2016See, e.g., Jones v. Willamette Indus., Inc., 120 N.C.App. 591 , 596, 463 S.E.2d 294 , 297-98 (1995) (holding Pleasant claim not established where employee died while cleaning residue from boiler system at employer's plant in unsafe manner in accordance with co-workers' instructions because "although supervisory personnel at [employer] should have ensured that adequate and appropriate safety measures were in place, and being used ... this does not support an inference that they intended for [the decedent] to be injured, nor does it support an inference that they were manifestly indifferent to t 2016See, e.g., Jones v. Willamette Indus., Inc., 120 N.C.App. 591 , 596, 463 S.E.2d 294 , 297-98 (1995) (holding Pleasant claim not established where employee died while cleaning residue from boiler system at employer's plant in unsafe manner in accordance with co-workers' instructions because "although supervisory personnel at [employer] should have ensured that adequate and appropriate safety measures were in place, and being used ... this does not support an inference that they intended for [the decedent] to be injured, nor does it support an inference that they were manifestly indifferent to t | 1 | 1 |
Jones v. Willamette Industries, Inc.green2 sentences2016See, e.g., Jones v. Willamette Indus., Inc., 120 N.C.App. 591 , 596, 463 S.E.2d 294 , 297-98 (1995) (holding Pleasant claim not established where employee died while cleaning residue from boiler system at employer's plant in unsafe manner in accordance with co-workers' instructions because "although supervisory personnel at [employer] should have ensured that adequate and appropriate safety measures were in place, and being used ... this does not support an inference that they intended for [the decedent] to be injured, nor does it support an inference that they were manifestly indifferent to t 2016See, e.g., Jones v. Willamette Indus., Inc., 120 N.C.App. 591 , 596, 463 S.E.2d 294 , 297-98 (1995) (holding Pleasant claim not established where employee died while cleaning residue from boiler system at employer's plant in unsafe manner in accordance with co-workers' instructions because "although supervisory personnel at [employer] should have ensured that adequate and appropriate safety measures were in place, and being used ... this does not support an inference that they intended for [the decedent] to be injured, nor does it support an inference that they were manifestly indifferent to t | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in North Carolina. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Dunleavy v. YATES CONST. CO., INC.
green
2 sentences2023We held that summary judgment against the estate’s Pleasant claim was proper because the trench only reached a dangerous depth while the supervisor was not present, and the failure to issue a hardhat required by OSHA or supervise the inexperienced crew, “although arguably negligent, was not willful, wanton, and reckless . . . [and] did not manifest reckless disregard for the rights and safety of the . . . crew.” Id. at 155-56 , 416 S.E.2d at 198-99 . 2023We held that summary judgment against the estate’s Pleasant claim was proper because the trench only reached a dangerous depth while the supervisor was not present, and the failure to issue a hardhat required by OSHA or supervise the inexperienced crew, “although arguably negligent, was not willful, wanton, and reckless . . . [and] did not manifest reckless disregard for the rights and safety of the . . . crew.” Id. at 155-56 , 416 S.E.2d at 198-99 . | 3 | 2012–2023 |
Greene v. Barrick
green
1 sentence2024Id. -8- ORTEZ V. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Fagundes v. Ammons Dev. Grp., Inc.
green
2 sentences2023The plaintiff in that case was employed as a blaster at a rock-crushing company and was seriously injured when struck by blast debris. 251 N.C. 2023The plaintiff in that case was employed as a blaster at a rock-crushing company and was seriously injured when struck by blast debris. 251 N.C. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Camalier v. Jeffries
green
2 sentences2017Because Fagundes did not forecast any evidence showing that Albino's actions while supervising the blast were willful, wanton, or reckless, we agree that the trial court should have entered summary judgment in Albino's favor on this claim. "[A] defendant, as the moving party, may meet its burden on summary judgment by proving that an essential element of the opposing party's claim is nonexistent, or by showing through discovery that the opposing party cannot produce evidence to support an essential element of his claim." Camalier v. Jeffries , 340 N.C. 699 , 710-11, 460 S.E.2d 133 , 138 (1995) 2017Because Fagundes did not forecast any evidence showing that Albino's actions while supervising the blast were willful, wanton, or reckless, we agree that the trial court should have entered summary judgment in Albino's favor on this claim. "[A] defendant, as the moving party, may meet its burden on summary judgment by proving that an essential element of the opposing party's claim is nonexistent, or by showing through discovery that the opposing party cannot produce evidence to support an essential element of his claim." Camalier v. Jeffries , 340 N.C. 699 , 710-11, 460 S.E.2d 133 , 138 (1995) | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Davis v. Nationwide Mutual Ins.
green
2 sentences2016See, e.g., Jones v. Willamette Indus., Inc., 120 N.C.App. 591 , 596, 463 S.E.2d 294 , 297-98 (1995) (holding Pleasant claim not established where employee died while cleaning residue from boiler system at employer's plant in unsafe manner in accordance with co-workers' instructions because "although supervisory personnel at [employer] should have ensured that adequate and appropriate safety measures were in place, and being used ... this does not support an inference that they intended for [the decedent] to be injured, nor does it support an inference that they were manifestly indifferent to t 2016See, e.g., Jones v. Willamette Indus., Inc., 120 N.C.App. 591 , 596, 463 S.E.2d 294 , 297-98 (1995) (holding Pleasant claim not established where employee died while cleaning residue from boiler system at employer's plant in unsafe manner in accordance with co-workers' instructions because "although supervisory personnel at [employer] should have ensured that adequate and appropriate safety measures were in place, and being used ... this does not support an inference that they intended for [the decedent] to be injured, nor does it support an inference that they were manifestly indifferent to t | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Trivette v. Yount
green
2 sentences2012Id. at —, 720 S.E.2d at 737 . 2012Id. at —, 720 S.E.2d at 737 . | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.