{ "id": 8548326, "name": "MARY LOUISE BROWN, Administratrix for the Estate of WILLIAM OSCAR BROWN v. MOTOR INNS OF CAROLINA, INC.", "name_abbreviation": "Brown v. Motor Inns of Carolina, Inc.", "decision_date": "1980-06-03", "docket_number": "No. 792SC714", "first_page": "115", "last_page": "120", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "47 N.C. App. 115" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.", "id": 14983, "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 5, "name_long": "North Carolina", "name": "N.C." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "181 S.E., 628", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "160 S.E., 479", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "201 N.C., 426", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8625937 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/201/0426-01" ] }, { "cite": "148 S.E. 2d 240", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1966, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "267 N.C. 364", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8559322 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1966, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/267/0364-01" ] }, { "cite": "148 S.E. 2d 548", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1966, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "267 N.C. 545", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8559844 ], "year": 1966, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/267/0545-01" ] }, { "cite": "181 S.E. 628", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "year": 1935, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "208 N.C. 517", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8612205 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1935, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/208/0517-01" ] }, { "cite": "8 S.E. 2d 219", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1940, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "217 N.C. 351", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8607321 ], "year": 1940, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/217/0351-01" ] }, { "cite": "25 S.E. 2d 837", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 4, "year": 1943, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "838" }, { "page": "838" }, { "page": "839" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "223 N.C. 213", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8604092 ], "weight": 4, "year": 1943, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "215" }, { "page": "215" }, { "page": "216" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/223/0213-01" ] }, { "cite": "148 S.E. 2d 554", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1966, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "267 N.C. 521", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8559782 ], "year": 1966, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/267/0521-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 566, "char_count": 10989, "ocr_confidence": 0.695, "pagerank": { "raw": 2.586104965554243e-07, "percentile": 0.8176557783870797 }, "sha256": "009750311a6410738de79f7160630e54d7e7825adde86d447541c9f2c4ea553b", "simhash": "1:1bf4c4e2d4ff185c", "word_count": 1783 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:44:12.655592+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges Vaughn and Arnold concur." ], "parties": [ "MARY LOUISE BROWN, Administratrix for the Estate of WILLIAM OSCAR BROWN v. MOTOR INNS OF CAROLINA, INC." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "MORRIS, Chief Judge.\nPlaintiff assigns error to the trial court\u2019s granting summary judgment in favor of defendant. Although the judgment is not clear as to the basis for the court\u2019s ruling, both plaintiff and defendant address in their briefs the issue of whether the disposition of plaintiff s previous claim for death benefits under the Workers\u2019 Compensation Act [the Act] precludes plaintiffs present tort action to recover for the wrongful death of her intestate.\nThe question of coverage under the Worker\u2019s Compensation Act is commonly raised by a defendant who seeks to defend a negligence action by alleging exclusive jurisdiction in the Industrial Commission because of plaintiffs employment by defendant at the time the injuries were incurred, thus limiting plaintiff to recovery of compensation benefits. E.g., Horney v. Meredith Swimming Pool Co., 267 N.C. 521, 148 S.E. 2d 554 (1966); Barber v. Minges, 223 N.C. 213, 25 S.E. 2d 837 (1943); McCune v. Rhodes-Rhyne Manufacturing Co., 217 N.C. 351, 8 S.E. 2d 219 (1940); Francis v. Carolina Wood Turning Co., 208 N.C. 517, 181 S.E. 628 (1935). Exclusive jurisdiction is based on G.S. 97-10.1, which provides as follows:\nIf the employee and the employer are subject to and have complied with the provisions of this Article, then the rights and remedies herein granted to the employee, his dependents, next of kin, or personal representative shall exclude all other rights and remedies of the employee, his dependents, next of kin, or representative as against the employer at common law or otherwise on account of such injury or death.\nThis section implements the purpose of the Act, which is to provide certain limited benefits to an injured employee regardless of negligence on the part of the employer, and simultaneously to deprive the employee of certain rights he had at the common law. Bryant v. Dougherty, 267 N.C. 545, 148 S.E. 2d 548 (1966); Hicks v. Guilford County, 267 N.C. 364, 148 S.E. 2d 240 (1966).\nOur Supreme Court has created an exception to the operation of G.S. 97-10.1 in cases where the injury arises from activities disconnected with the employment. In Barber v. Minges, supra, plaintiffs intestate died as a result of an accident occurring while he was on a fishing trip as a guest of his employer, who customarily provided an annual outing for his employees and their families \u201cin the promotion of good will\u201d. In a subsequent negligence suit against defendant and his company, the trial court granted defendants\u2019 motion to dismiss based on the ground that the North Carolina Industrial Commission had exclusive jurisdiction over the case under the Workers\u2019 Compensation Act. On appeal, defendants contended that the Act \u201cexcludes all remedies other than through the Industrial Commission, whether plaintiff be invitee or licensee; whether he be on the job, or off the job; whether the accident arises out of employment, or independently of employment.\u201d 223 N.C. at 215, 25 S.E. 2d at 838. The Court rejected this argument, stating:\nCarried to its logical extreme, this would confer immunity from liability upon an employer who inflicts a negligent injury on an employee while the latter is not engaged in any activity of his employment and is far from the scene of his duties, while he is on the way to the grocer or to church, or wherever he has the right to be in the pursuit of his own affairs. The contention is too sweeping to merit serious attention except for the fact that counsel for defense cite certain decisions of this Court which have been recognized as having that significance. Pilley v. Cotton Mills, 201 N.C., 426, 160 S.E., 479; Francis v. Wood Turning Co., 208 N.C., 517, 181 S.E., 628.\n223 N.C. at 215, 25 S.E. 2d at 838. The Court characterized the Act as concerning itself with the relation of master and servant and their mutual rights and liabilities, which in the Court\u2019s opinion, did not extend beyond the context of \u201cemployment\u201d:\nThe incidence of the law is on the status created by the contract of employment. It deals with the incidents and risks of that employment, in which concededly is included the negligence of the employer in that relation. It has no application outside the field of industrial accident; and does not intend, by its general terms, to take away common law or other rights which pertain to the parties only as members of the general public, disconnected with the employment ... Expressions in [the Act] regarding the surrender of the right to maintain common law or statutory actions against the employer are not absolute \u2014 not words of universal import, making no contact with time, place or circumstance. They must be construed within the framework of the Act, and as qualified by its subject and purposes.\n223 N.C. at 216, 25 S.E. 2d at 839. Distinguishing prior cases which held the Act controlling on the issue of jurisdiction, the Court ruled that the Act was inapplicable to the facts of that case, in that the outing sponsored by defendant occurred on Sunday, plaintiffs intestate was not paid for attendance, but was merely invited, plaintiffs intestate was not under the control and direction of defendant during the outing, and plaintiffs intestate owed no duty to defendant or to other invited guests.\nIn Bryant v. Dougherty, supra, the Barber decision was applied to determine the jurisdiction of the Industrial Commission in a malpractice action against a physician who was not employed by defendant but was merely selected by defendant to treat an employee for injuries received while in defendant\u2019s employ. In holding that the Act did not confer upon the Industrial Commission jurisdiction over an action by an injured employee against a physician for injuries due to the physician\u2019s negligence in treating the employee, the Court reiterated its position regarding the dispositive nature of the employer-employee realtionship:\nThe Workmen\u2019s Compensation Act relates to the rights and liabilities of employee and employer by reason of injuries and disabilities arising out of and in the course of the employment relation. Where that relation does not exist the Act has no application. Hicks v. Guilford County, 267 N.C. 364, 148 S.E. 2d 240. Where the employer and the employee are subject to and have accepted and complied with the provisions of the Act, the rights and remedies therein granted to the employee exclude all other rights and remedies in his favor against the employer. G.S. 97-10.1. The Act does not, however, take away any common law right of the employee, even as against the employer, provided the right be one which is disconnected with the employment and pertains to the employee, not as an employee but as a member of the public. [Citations omitted.]\n267 N.C. at 548, 148 S.E. 2d at 551. The findings adopted by the trial court in the case before us reveal that the death of plaintiff\u2019s intestate occurred outside the employment context. Therefore, under the rationale in Barber and Bryant, it is our opinion that plaintiffs claim falls outside the exclusive jurisdictional provisions of the Workers\u2019 Compensation Act.\nDefendant argues in addition that, even if the Industrial Commission lacked jurisdiction and plaintiff\u2019s action is not precluded on this ground, plaintiffs action is barred because defendant owed no duty to plaintiffs intestate from which a breach of duty could be established and that plaintiffs intestate contributed to his own death. From our review of the pleadings presented on motion for summary judgment, we find that substantial questions of material fact exist concerning the knowledge of both plaintiffs intestate and defendant of the condition of the pool area at the time plaintiffs intestate entered the pool. These issues should be developed at trial.\nWe, therefore, reverse the decision of the trial court and remand this action to the Superior Court for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.\nReversed and remanded.\nJudges Vaughn and Arnold concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "MORRIS, Chief Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Hulse and Hulse, by Herbert B. Hulse, and Duke and Brown, by John E. Duke, for plaintiff appellant.", "Battle, Winslow, Scott and Wiley, by Samuel S. Woodley, for defendant appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "MARY LOUISE BROWN, Administratrix for the Estate of WILLIAM OSCAR BROWN v. MOTOR INNS OF CAROLINA, INC.\nNo. 792SC714\n(Filed 3 June 1980)\nMaster and Servant \u00a7 87.1- employee drowning in pool - no work related injury - no exclusive jurisdiction in Industrial Commission\nIn an action to recover for the wrongful death of plaintiffs intestate who drowned in defendant employer\u2019s swimming pool after he had completed his day\u2019s work and while he was attending a birthday party for another employee, the death of plaintiffs intestate occurred outside the employment contract, and plaintiffs claim therefore fell outside the exclusive jurisdictional provisions of the Workers\u2019 Compensation Act.\nAppeal by plaintiff from Fountain, Judge. Judgment entered 21 May 1979 in Superior Court, Martin County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 25 February 1980.\nOn 8 June 1978 plaintiff filed this negligence action to recover damages for the wrongful death of her intestate, William Oscar Brown, who died on 16 June 1976 as a result of suffocation by drowning in defendant\u2019s swimming pool. The incident occurred after plaintiffs intestate, an employee of defendant, had completed his day\u2019s work and while he was attending an impromptu birthday celebration given for another employee at the pool area. Defendant answered, denying negligence on its part, and asserted that plaintiffs intestate was contributorily negligent.\nIn addition, defendant moved to dismiss the action for want of subject matter jurisdiction in that plaintiffs rights, if any, were governed by the Workers\u2019 Compensation Act. Defendant\u2019s motion was based on a denial of plaintiffs previous claim for compensation benefits against defendant and defendant\u2019s insurance carrier. In an opinion dated 25 March 1977, the Deputy Commissioner ruled that the death of plaintiffs intestate \u201cdid not arise out of and in the course of the employment because the social event attended by him after work was not a regular incident of the employment, was not required as a condition of employment, did not constitute remuneration in leiu of wages and did not involve substantial direct benefit to the employer.\u201d No appeal was taken from this order.\nBy agreement between the parties, the trial court treated defendant\u2019s motion to dismiss as a motion for summary judgment under G.S. 1A-1, Rule 12(b) and G.S. 1A-1, Rule 56 of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure. The court considered, in addition to the pleadings, the opinion of the Deputy Commissioner denying plaintiffs claim for benefits. That order included the stipulation of the parties that they were \u201cbound by and subject to the provisions of the North Carolina Workers\u2019] Compensation Act.\u201d On 21 May 1979, the trial court entered summary judgment in favor of defendant and dismissed plaintiffs claim with prejudice. Plaintiff appeals.\nHulse and Hulse, by Herbert B. Hulse, and Duke and Brown, by John E. Duke, for plaintiff appellant.\nBattle, Winslow, Scott and Wiley, by Samuel S. Woodley, for defendant appellee." }, "file_name": "0115-01", "first_page_order": 151, "last_page_order": 156 }