N.C. Gen. Stat. » Chapter 97
NC General Statutes

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-6 (2026)

No special contract can relieve an employer of obligations

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NCLEGncleg.gov (official) JustiaChapter 97 CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

No contract or agreement, written or implied, no rule, regulation, or other device shall in any manner operate to relieve an employer in whole or in part, of any obligation created by this Article, except as herein otherwise expressly provided. (1929, c. 120, s. 7.)

 

§ 97-6.1:  Repealed by 1991 (Regular Session, 1992), c. 1021, s. 4.

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 27 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1947–2025 · leading case: Tellado v. Ti-Caro Corp., 459 S.E.2d 27 (N.C. Ct. App. 1995).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Tellado v. Ti-Caro Corp., 459 S.E.2d 27 (N.C. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 10× “N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-6 (1991) provides the following: No contract or agreement, written or implied, no rule, regulation, or other device shall in any manner operate to relieve an employer in whole or in part, of any obligation created by this Article, except as herein otherwise…”
Gregory v. Pearson, 736 S.E.2d 577 (N.C. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 8× “” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-6 (2011). The Workers’ Compensation Act provides an exclusive remedy for unintentional work-related injuries.”
Perkins v. Arkansas Trucking Servs., Inc., 528 S.E.2d 902 (N.C. 2000). · cites it 3× “§ 97-36 and specifically violates N.C.G.S. § 97-6, which invalidates agreements that operate to relieve an employer of any obligation under the North Carolina Workers’ Compensation Act.”
Sides v. Duke Univ., 328 S.E.2d 818 (N.C. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 2× “Plaintiff pointed out that the Indiana Worker's Compensation Law provided, as did the North Carolina Workers' Compensation Act through G.S. 97-6, that no employer could avoid its obligation under the law by any agreement, rule, regulation or other device; and that the Frampton…”
Salter v. E & J Healthcare, Inc., 575 S.E.2d 46 (N.C. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 2× “This Court rejected the plaintiff’s theory of “retaliatory discharge” as a device to avoid statutory workers’ compensation obligations under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-6 , which is the same today as it was then.”
Estes v. North Carolina State Univ., 365 S.E.2d 160 (N.C. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 5× “G.S. 97-6 provides that: [n]o contract or agreement, written or implied, no rule, regulation, or other device shall in any manner operate to relieve an employer in whole or in part, of any obligation created by this Article, except as herein otherwise expressly provided.”
Estes v. North Carolina State Univ., 401 S.E.2d 384 (N.C. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 3× “Under N.C.G.S. §§ 97-6 and -7, employers including the State are prohibited from providing benefits in lieu of paying workers’ compensation.”
Wood v. J. P. Stevens & Co., 256 S.E.2d 692 (N.C. 1979). “G.S. 97-6. The liability of the employer under our Workmen’s Compensation Act arises not from the individual employment contract but from the Act itself.”
Est. of Harvey Ex Rel. Harvey v. Kore-Kut, Inc., 636 S.E.2d 210 (N.C. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 2× “See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-6 (2005). Accordingly, the trial court improperly granted the motion to dismiss or strike the defense of the intervening and insulating negligence of SCI, and therefore the case must be remanded for a trial on the merits and a jury determination as to…”
Clayton v. Mini Data Forms, Inc., 681 S.E.2d 544 (N.C. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 2× “In addressing this question, the Court noted that under the Workers’ Compensation Act, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-6 and -7, “employers including the State are prohibited from providing benefits in lieu of paying workers’ compensation.”
Hoffman v. Ryder Truck Lines, Inc., 293 S.E.2d 807 (N.C. 1982). “By its terms, the clause does not exclude or affect the possible liability of the carrier for workers’ compensation with respect to injuries received by an employee-driver, whomever he may be, as a result of his attempt to repair some part of the vehicle, and we shall not expand…”
Davis v. Great Coastal Express, 610 S.E.2d 276 (N.C. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 2× “Plaintiff argues that this evaluation of his principal place of employment violates our Workers’ Compensation Act in that defendant testified that it considered all of its employees to have their principal place of employment in Virginia for workers’ compensation purposes.”
Show all 27 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.