11 North Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 1902–2023 1 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 sentences2023Pleasant v. Johnson, 312 N.C. 710 , 325 S.E.2d 244 . 2023Pleasant v. Johnson, 312 N.C. 710 , 325 S.E.2d 244 . | 1 | 3 |
Edwards v. GE Lighting Systems, Inc.green2 sentences2016Edwards, 193 N.C.App. at 582 , 668 S.E.2d at 117 (internal citations, quotation marks, and brackets omitted). 2016Edwards, 193 N.C.App. at 582 , 668 S.E.2d at 117 (internal citations, quotation marks, and brackets omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Woodson v. Rowlandgreen2 sentences2008In exchange for this immunity, the Act imposes liability, including medical expenses and lost income, on employers for work-related injuries “without [the worker] having to prove employer negligence or face affirmative defenses such as contributory negligence and the fellow servant rule.” Woodson v. Rowland, 329 N.C. 330, 338 , 407 S.E.2d 222, 227 (1991) (citation omitted). *583 In Woodson v. Rowland, the North Carolina Supreme Court enunciated a limited exception to the exclusivity provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Act and held that an employee may pursue a civil action against his or h 2008In exchange for this immunity, the Act imposes liability, including medical expenses and lost income, on employers for work-related injuries “without [the worker] having to prove employer negligence or face affirmative defenses such as contributory negligence and the fellow servant rule.” Woodson v. Rowland, 329 N.C. 330, 338 , 407 S.E.2d 222, 227 (1991) (citation omitted). *583 In Woodson v. Rowland, the North Carolina Supreme Court enunciated a limited exception to the exclusivity provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Act and held that an employee may pursue a civil action against his or h | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Southern Ry. Co. v. Derr
green
2 sentences1920The contrary has been held in S. Ry. v. Derr, 240 Fed., 73 , and this would seem to be the correct deduction from the premises. 1920The contrary has been held in S. Ry. v. Derr , 240 Fed., 73 , and this would seem to be the correct deduction from the premises. | 2 | 1920–1920 |
Pastva v. Naegele Outdoor Advertising, Inc.
green
1 sentence2008Our courts have defined “substantial certainty” as “more than the ‘mere possibility’ or ‘substantial probability’ of serious injury or death, . . . [but] less than ‘actual certainty.’ ” Pastva v. Naegele Outdoor Advertising, 121 N.C. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Cook v. Manufacturing Co.
neutral
1 sentence1930There was a *251 petition in tbe ease to rehear—183 N. C., 48, and at p. 51 we find: “The rigorous rule of the fellow-servant doctrine, as it once obtained, has' been greatly modified in recent years. | 1 | 1930–1930 |
Tanner v. Lumber Co.
neutral
1 sentence1930Speaking to this question, Brown, J., in Tanner v. Lumber Co., 140 N. C., 475 , makes the following pertinent observation: ‘The true rule now is more humane and holds the master liable for negligence in respect to such acts and duties as he is required, or assumed to perform, without regard to the rank or title of the agent entrusted with their performance. | 1 | 1930–1930 |
Harrell v. Blythe.
green
1 sentence1922Speaking to this question, Brown, J., in Tanner v. Lumber Co., 140 N. C., 415 , makes the following pertinent observation: “The true rule now is more humane and holds the master is liable for negligence in respect to such acts and duties as he is required, or assumed to perform, without regard to the rank or title of the agent intrusted with their performance. | 1 | 1922–1922 |
Twiddy v. Dare Lumber Co.
neutral
1 sentence1912This question is discussed at large by Mr. Justice Hoke in the case of Twiddy v. Lumber Co., 154 N. C., 237 , which is on all-fours with the case at bar, and should govern its decision. | 1 | 1912–1912 |
Coley v. North Carolina Railroad
neutral
1 sentence1902Railroad Co., 129 N. C., 407 ) the view expressed by the Chief Justice— Douglas, J., saying (page 409) that our statute is “an un<-conditional abrogation of the kindred doctrine of fellow servant and assumption of risk, as applied to railroad companies” ; and on page 410, “We have, therefore, no hesitation in holding the Act of February, 1897, valid in its entiretly, and that it deprives all railroad companies operating in this State of the defense of assumption of risk, whether resting in contract express or implied, and whether pleaded directly or-under the doctrine of fellow servant.” No ca | 1 | 1902–1902 |
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.