6 North Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 1995–2023 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 |
|---|---|---|
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). 1998App. 225 , 489 S.E.2d 421 (holding that worker injured while operating a coater which was part of a paint line at an assembly plant failed to establish his employer knew that requiring him to operate the coater without the guard was substantially certain to cause serious injury or death though employer had previously been cited with an OSHA violation due to the lack of a guard on the coater). | 1 | 2 |
Pendergrass v. Card Care, 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 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). | 1 | 1 |
Mickles v. Duke Power Co.green2 sentences1997See Woodson v. Rowland, 329 N.C. 330, 346 , 407 S.E.2d 222, 231-32 ; see also Mickles v. Duke Power Co., 342 N.C. 103, 111 , 463 S.E.2d 206, 211 (1995). 1997See Woodson v. Rowland, 329 N.C. 330, 346 , 407 S.E.2d 222, 231-32 ; see also Mickles v. Duke Power Co., 342 N.C. 103, 111 , 463 S.E.2d 206, 211 (1995). | 1 | 1 |
Woodson v. Rowlandgreen2 sentences1997See Woodson v. Rowland, 329 N.C. 330, 346 , 407 S.E.2d 222, 231-32 ; see also Mickles v. Duke Power Co., 342 N.C. 103, 111 , 463 S.E.2d 206, 211 (1995). 1997See Woodson v. Rowland, 329 N.C. 330, 346 , 407 S.E.2d 222, 231-32 ; see also Mickles v. Duke Power Co., 342 N.C. 103, 111 , 463 S.E.2d 206, 211 (1995). | 1 | 1 |
Prevette v. Clark Equipment Co.green1 sentence1996See , in contrast, Prevette v. Clark Equipment Co. , 302 S.E.2d 639 , 642 (N.C.App. 1983) (where employer made adequate equipment available and instructed employees how to use it, OSHA violation not "willful."). 8. | 1 | 1 |
Daniel Construction Co. v. Brooksgreen2 sentences1995App. 426, 430 , 326 S.E.2d 339, 342 (1985). “ [A] violation of an OSHA standard is willful if the employer deliberately violates the standard,” which requires a voluntary act done with either “ ‘intentional disregard of or plain indifference’ to the requirements of the standard.” Ansco & Assocs., 114 N.C. 1995App. 426, 430 , 326 S.E.2d 339, 342 (1985). “ [A] violation of an OSHA standard is willful if the employer deliberately violates the standard,” which requires a voluntary act done with either “ ‘intentional disregard of or plain indifference’ to the requirements of the standard.” Ansco & Assocs., 114 N.C. | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Sloan v. Miller Building Corp.
green
2 sentences2009In Sloan , this Court held that the trial court improperly granted summary judgment in favor of the general contractor where a subcontractor’s employee was injured after falling from the third floor at a site where the general contractor had been cited for a serious OSHA violation involving the general contractor’s “failure to have standard railings or the equivalent on the open-sided second and third floors.” See Sloan, 119 N.C. 2009In Sloan , this Court held that the trial court improperly granted summary judgment in favor of the general contractor where a subcontractor’s employee was injured after falling from the third floor at a site where the general contractor had been cited for a serious OSHA violation involving the general contractor’s “failure to have standard railings or the equivalent on the open-sided second and third floors.” See Sloan, 119 N.C. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Brooks v. Ansco & Associates, Inc.
green
2 sentences1995App. 426, 430 , 326 S.E.2d 339, 342 (1985). “ [A] violation of an OSHA standard is willful if the employer deliberately violates the standard,” which requires a voluntary act done with either “ ‘intentional disregard of or plain indifference’ to the requirements of the standard.” Ansco & Assocs., 114 N.C. 1995App. 426, 430 , 326 S.E.2d 339, 342 (1985). “ [A] violation of an OSHA standard is willful if the employer deliberately violates the standard,” which requires a voluntary act done with either “ ‘intentional disregard of or plain indifference’ to the requirements of the standard.” Ansco & Assocs., 114 N.C. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
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.