{ "id": 4767001, "name": "MARIE R. LEONARD, Administratrix of the estate of SAMUEL L. LEONARD, Deceased v. JOHNS-MANVILLE SALES CORPORATION, A Delaware Corporation; UNARCO INDUSTRIES, INC., An Illinois Corporation; GAF CORPORATION, A Delaware Corporation; ARMSTRONG CORK COMPANY, A Pennsylvania Corporation; RAYBESTOSMANHATTAN, INC., A Connecticut Corporation; OWENS-CORNING FIBERGLASS CORPORATION, A Delaware Corporation; PITTSBURGH CORNING CORPORATION, A Pennsylvania Corporation; THE CELOTEX CORPORATION, A Delaware Corporation; NICOLET INDUSTRIES, A Pennsylvania Corporation; FORTY-EIGHT INSULATION, INC., An Illinois Corporation; EAGLE-PICHER INDUSTRIES, INC., An Ohio Corporation; STANDARD ASBESTOS & INSULATION CO., A Missouri Corporation; OWENS-ILLINOIS, INC., An Ohio Corporation; H. K. PORTER, A Pennsylvania Corporation; NATIONAL GYPSUM CO., A Delaware Corporation; FIBREBOARD CORPORATION, A Delaware Corporation; GARLOCK, INC., A Foreign Corporation; KEENE CORPORATION, A New Jersey Corporation; NORTH AMERICAN ASBESTOS CORPORATION, A Foreign Corporation; CAREY CANADIAN MINES, LTD., A Foreign Corporation; LAKE ASBESTOS OF QUEBEC, LTD., A Foreign Corporation; AMATEX CORPORATION, A Pennsylvania Corporation; SOUTHERN ASBESTOS COMPANY", "name_abbreviation": "Leonard v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp.", "decision_date": "1983-08-09", "docket_number": "No. 697PA82", "first_page": "91", "last_page": "102", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "309 N.C. 91" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.C.", "id": 9292, "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 5, "name_long": "North Carolina", "name": "N.C." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "297 S.E. 2d 147", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1982, "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "59 N.C. App. 454", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8526694 ], "year": 1982, "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/59/0454-01" ] }, { "cite": "160 S.E. 835", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "835" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "201 N.C. 574", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8626935 ], "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "575" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/201/0574-01" ] }, { "cite": "48 S.E. 591", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "weight": 3, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "592" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "136 N.C. 115", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8658853 ], "weight": 3, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "87" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/136/0115-01" ] }, { "cite": "1982 Duke L.J. 483", "category": "journals:journal", "reporter": "Duke L.J.", "year": 1982, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "162 S.E. 613", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "year": 1932, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "617-18", "parenthetical": "\"Brown I\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "202 N.C. 256", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8625743 ], "year": 1932, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "263-64", "parenthetical": "\"Brown I\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/202/0256-01" ] }, { "cite": "153 S.E. 256", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "198 N.C. 723", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8619113 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/198/0723-01" ] }, { "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 9740.2", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.", "weight": 2, "year": 1979, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "(a)" }, { "page": "(f)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "169 S.E. 419", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "weight": 4, "year": 1933, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "\"Brown II\"" }, { "page": "420" }, { "page": "420" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "204 N.C. 668", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8623764 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1933, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "\"Brown II\"" }, { "page": "670" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/204/0668-01" ] }, { "cite": "347 F. Supp. 1288", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F. Supp.", "case_ids": [ 3532338 ], "year": 1972, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f-supp/347/1288-01" ] }, { "cite": "65 S.E. 2d 575", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1951, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "192 Va. 518", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Va.", "case_ids": [ 2158739 ], "year": 1951, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/va/192/0518-01" ] }, { "cite": "75 S.E. 2d 768", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1953, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "237 N.C. 559", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8615939 ], "year": 1953, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/237/0559-01" ] }, { "cite": "277 S.E. 2d 149", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1981, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "cited hereafter as \"Vepco\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "221 Va. 979", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Va.", "case_ids": [ 2138810 ], "year": 1981, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "cited hereafter as \"Vepco\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/va/221/0979-01" ] }, { "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 97-10.2", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.", "weight": 2, "year": 1979, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "(e)" }, { "page": "(a)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "284 N.C. 258", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8561560, 8561521, 8561537, 8561595 ], "year": 1973, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/284/0258-03", "/nc/284/0258-01", "/nc/284/0258-02", "/nc/284/0258-04" ] }, { "cite": "198 S.E. 2d 766", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1973, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "19 N.C. App. 337", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8553210 ], "year": 1973, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/19/0337-01" ] }, { "cite": "201 S.E. 2d 353", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1973, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "20 N.C. App. 283", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8552025 ], "year": 1973, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/20/0283-01" ] }, { "cite": "26 S.E. 2d 911", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1943, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "223 N.C. 360", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8607842 ], "year": 1943, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/223/0360-01" ] }, { "cite": "70 S.E. 2d 558", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1952, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "235 N.C. 522", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8625867 ], "year": 1952, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/235/0522-01" ] }, { "cite": "114 S.E. 2d 683", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1960, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "252 N.C. 699", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8625473 ], "year": 1960, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/252/0699-01" ] }, { "cite": "148 S.E. 2d 527", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1966, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "267 N.C. 565", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8559889 ], "year": 1966, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/267/0565-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 1031, "char_count": 25608, "ocr_confidence": 0.834, "pagerank": { "raw": 2.830135740726954e-07, "percentile": 0.8390942869642207 }, "sha256": "f43454de6336941cd660746f36c30f97f307d4c1ecbeb9cd618bef364b7dc62f", "simhash": "1:3d39b432549bec57", "word_count": 4172 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:05:00.577130+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "MARIE R. LEONARD, Administratrix of the estate of SAMUEL L. LEONARD, Deceased v. JOHNS-MANVILLE SALES CORPORATION, A Delaware Corporation; UNARCO INDUSTRIES, INC., An Illinois Corporation; GAF CORPORATION, A Delaware Corporation; ARMSTRONG CORK COMPANY, A Pennsylvania Corporation; RAYBESTOSMANHATTAN, INC., A Connecticut Corporation; OWENS-CORNING FIBERGLASS CORPORATION, A Delaware Corporation; PITTSBURGH CORNING CORPORATION, A Pennsylvania Corporation; THE CELOTEX CORPORATION, A Delaware Corporation; NICOLET INDUSTRIES, A Pennsylvania Corporation; FORTY-EIGHT INSULATION, INC., An Illinois Corporation; EAGLE-PICHER INDUSTRIES, INC., An Ohio Corporation; STANDARD ASBESTOS & INSULATION CO., A Missouri Corporation; OWENS-ILLINOIS, INC., An Ohio Corporation; H. K. PORTER, A Pennsylvania Corporation; NATIONAL GYPSUM CO., A Delaware Corporation; FIBREBOARD CORPORATION, A Delaware Corporation; GARLOCK, INC., A Foreign Corporation; KEENE CORPORATION, A New Jersey Corporation; NORTH AMERICAN ASBESTOS CORPORATION, A Foreign Corporation; CAREY CANADIAN MINES, LTD., A Foreign Corporation; LAKE ASBESTOS OF QUEBEC, LTD., A Foreign Corporation; AMATEX CORPORATION, A Pennsylvania Corporation; SOUTHERN ASBESTOS COMPANY" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "MARTIN, Justice.\nThe issue we must decide is whether in this North Carolina wrongful death action defendant manufacturers are entitled to amend their answers to allege as a pro tanto defense the concurring negligence of decedent\u2019s employer who had paid a Virginia workers\u2019 compensation claim arising from the asbestosis which ultimately caused decedent\u2019s death. For reasons stated below, we hold that defendants in this case may allege as a defense the concurring negligence of decedent\u2019s employer.\nTraditionally, this court has held that when the injury giving rise to a negligence claim occurs in another state, the law of that state will govern resolution of the substantive issues in the controversy. E.g., Thames v. Teer Co., 267 N.C. 565, 148 S.E. 2d 527 (1966); McCombs v. Trucking Co. and Miller v. Trucking Company, 252 N.C. 699, 114 S.E. 2d 683 (1960); Childress v. Motor Lines, 235 N.C. 522, 70 S.E. 2d 558 (1952); Charnock v. Taylor, 223 N.C. 360, 26 S.E. 2d 911 (1943); Chewning v. Chewning, 20 N.C. App. 283, 201 S.E. 2d 353 (1973); Williams v. General Motors Corp., 19 N.C. App. 337, 198 S.E. 2d 766, cert. denied, 284 N.C. 258 (1973). N.C.G.S. 8-4 authorized our courts to \u201ctake notice of such law in the same manner as if the question arose under the law of this State.\u201d Thames v. Teer Co., supra. The party seeking to have the law of a foreign jurisdiction apply has the burden of bringing such law to the attention of the court. If the foreign jurisdiction has no law, either statutory or decisional, on the question involved, the courts of this state will not speculate what law such jurisdiction might adopt and will apply the law of North Carolina.\nIn the present case, Stone & Webster argues that because the place of decedent\u2019s injury was in Virginia, the law of Virginia should apply and Virginia law would not permit it to be brought into this litigation for any purpose. Virginia does not have a statute permitting or prohibiting a third party sued in tort by an employee to allege as a pro tanto defense the negligence of an employer who has paid workers\u2019 compensation to the employee for the injury. Cf. N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 97-10.2(e) (1979). Like North Carolina, however, Virginia does not permit defendants in an employee\u2019s tort suit to join an employer as a party defendant based on a claim that the employer is a joint tort-feasor if the employer has paid workers\u2019 compensation for the injury sued upon. Virginia Elec. & Power Co. v. Wilson, 221 Va. 979, 277 S.E. 2d 149 (1981) (cited hereafter as \u201cVepco\u201d). See, e.g., Hunsucker v. Chair Co., 237 N.C. 559, 75 S.E. 2d 768 (1953). In Vepco, Virginia Electric and Power Company was sued in tort by employees of K. F. Wilson for damages for personal injuries allegedly caused by a gas main explosion. K. F. Wilson had paid workers\u2019 compensation to these employees, and the power company sought to implead Wilson in the personal injury suit for contribution or indemnity on the theory that Wilson was a joint tort-feasor. The Supreme Court of Virginia affirmed dismissal of Wilson as a third-party defendant, holding that because plaintiff had no right of action in tort against Wilson, the power company could not implead Wilson for contribution or indemnity. See Va. Code \u00a7\u00a7 8.01-34, 65.1-40 (1980); Fauver v. Bell, 192 Va. 518, 65 S.E. 2d 575 (1951). See also Jennings v. Franz Torwegge Machine Works, 347 F. Supp. 1288 (W.D.Va. 1972).\nHowever, neither our own research nor that of Stone & Webster has revealed any Virginia case either permitting or prohibiting third parties to raise the employer\u2019s negligence as a pro tanto defense in a suit such as the instant one. Stone & Webster urges this Court to read the Vepco decision, supra, as an indication that the Supreme Court of Virginia would not allow Stone & Webster to be brought into this suit for any purpose. We decline to engage in such speculation. If this case were before it, the Supreme Court of Virginia might very well allow Stone & Webster to be brought into this suit for the limited purpose argued by defendants, while refusing to allow it to be impleaded as a joint tort-feasor. Cf. Brown v. R. R., 204 N.C. 668, 169 S.E. 419 (1933) (\u201cBrown II\u201d). In the absence of any Virginia law one way or the other on this issue, the rule of lex loci delicti commissi does not apply. Instead, we hold that North Carolina law applies. We now explain what that law is.\nIf Mr. Leonard had been awarded workers\u2019 compensation under the North Carolina Workers\u2019 Compensation Act, then in this tort action defendants would have been able to bring decedent\u2019s employer into the suit for limited purposes by alleging that the employer\u2019s contributory negligence was a cause of decedent\u2019s injuries. N.C.G.S. 97-10.2 provides in pertinent part as follows:\n(a) The right to compensation and other benefits under this Article for disability, disfigurement, or death shall not be affected by the fact that the injury or death was caused under circumstances creating a liability in some person other than the employer to pay damages therefor, such person hereinafter being referred to as the \u201cthird party.\u201d The respective rights and interests of the employee-beneficiary under this Article, the employer, and the employer\u2019s insurance carrier, if any, in respect of the common-law cause of action against such third party and the damages recovered shall be as set forth in this section.\n(b) The employee, or his personal representative if he be dead, shall have the exclusive right to proceed to enforce the liability of the third party by appropriate proceedings if such proceedings are instituted not later than 12 months after the date of injury or death, whichever is later. . . .\n(e) The amount of compensation and other benefits paid or payable on account to [sic] such injury or death shall not be admissible in evidence in any proceeding against the third party. If the third party defending such proceeding, by answer duly served on the employer, sufficiently alleges that actionable negligence of the employer joined and concurred with the negligence of the third party in producing the injury or death, then an issue shall be submitted to the jury in such case as to whether actionable negligence of the employer joined and concurred with the negligence of the third party in producing the injury or death. The employer shall have the right to appear, to be represented, to introduce evidence, to cross-examine adverse witnesses, and to argue to the jury as to this issue as fully as though he were a party although not named or joined as a party to the proceeding. Such issue shall be the last of the issues submitted to the jury. If the verdict shall be that actionable negligence of the employer did join and concur with that of the third party in producing the injury or death, then the court shall reduce the damages awarded by the jury against the third party by the amount which the employer would otherwise be entitled to receive therefrom by way of subrogation hereunder and the entire amount recovered, after such reduction, shall belong to the employee or his personal representative free of any claim by the employer and the third party shall have no further right by way of contribution or otherwise against the employer, except any right which may exist by reason of an express contract of indemnity between the employer and the third party, which was entered into prior to the injury to the employee.\nN.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 97-10.2(a), (b), (e) (1979). However, because in this case neither decedent nor his administratrix recovered workers\u2019 compensation under the North Carolina act, N.C.G.S. 9740.2(e) does not control. N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 9740.2(a) (1979). Nevertheless, we find that the policy and reasoning behind this statute apply equally to the facts in the present case and thus defendants may allege the contributory negligence of Stone & Webster as a defense for the same limited purposes and by the same procedure set forth in N.C.G.S. 97-10.2.\nThe procedure provided for in N.C.G.S. 9740.2(e) was created judicially in Brown II, supra, 204 N.C. 668, 169 S.E. 419. In that case plaintiff\u2019s intestate was driving a truck in the employ of Chero-Cola Bottling Company (\u201cChero-Cola\u201d) when he was struck and killed by a train owned by defendant, Southern Railway Company (\u201cRailway\u201d). Chero-Cola paid decedent\u2019s administrator workers\u2019 compensation and this administrator then instituted a wrongful death action against Southern Railway. Under the workers\u2019 compensation statute in effect at the time, an employer who had paid workers\u2019 compensation was entitled to be subrogated pro tanto to the employee\u2019s right to recover damages from a third party whose negligence caused the employee\u2019s injury:\nThe acceptance of an award under [the Workmen\u2019s Compensation Act] against an employer for compensation for the injury or death of an employee shall operate as an assignment to the employer of any right to recover damages which the injured employee or his personal representative or other person may have against any other party for such injury or death; and such employer shall be subrogated to any such right, and may enforce, in his own name or in the name of the injured employee or his personal representative the legal liability of such other party.\nN.C. Code Ann. \u00a7 8081(r) (Supp. 1929). Thus, if Railway were determined liable for decedent\u2019s death, Chero-Cola would be paid from the damages assessed an amount equal to the workers\u2019 compensation it had paid to decedent.\nIn the wrongful death case brought against it, however, Railway moved to join Chero-Cola as a party defendant, alleging that Chero-Cola\u2019s negligence was also a cause of decedent\u2019s death and thus Chero-Cola was liable as a joint tort-feasor. The trial court allowed Railway\u2019s motion, but on appeal this Court reversed, explaining that once an employer has paid workers\u2019 compensation he cannot be held liable with a third party as a joint tort-feasor.\nIn Conrad v. Foundry Co., 198 N.C. 723, 153 S.E. 256 [266], it is said that the General Assembly of this State by its enactment of chapter 120, Public Laws 1929, known as the Workmen\u2019s Compensation Act, discarded the theory of fault as the basis of liability of an employer to his employee, when both have become in accordance with its provisions, subject to said act, and conferred an absolute right of compensation on every employee who is injured by an accident arising out of and in the course of the employment. In consideration of the enlarged liability of the employer to an injured employee, the employee is deprived by the act of certain rights and remedies which he had prior to its enactment, both at common law and under statutes of this State. Section 11 of said act (N. C. Code, 1931, sec. 8081(r)[)], expressly provides that \u201cthe rights and remedies herein granted to an employee, when he and his employer have accepted the provisions of this chapter, respectively, to pay and accept compensation on account of personal injury or death by accident, shall exclude all other rights and remedies of such employee, his personal representatives, parents, dependents or next of kin, as against his employer, at common law or otherwise, on account of such injury, loss of service or death.\u201d\nBy virtue of the foregoing provision of the statute, the Chero-Cola Bottling Company, on the facts appearing in the record, and admitted for the purposes of plaintiffs appeal, is not liable to plaintiff as a joint tort-feasor. The said company has been expressly relieved of such liability by the provisions of the statute.\nBrown v. R. R., 202 N.C. 256, 263-64, 162 S.E. 613, 617-18 (1932) (\u201cBrown I\u201d). Therefore, Chero-Cola could not be made a party defendant in the action. See generally Larson, Third-Party Action Over Against Workers\u2019 Compensation Employer, 1982 Duke L.J. 483 (1982).\nHowever, Railway then went on to amend its answer to allege that because Chero-Cola\u2019s negligence was a cause of decedent\u2019s death, Chero-Cola and its insurer should be barred from any recovery insofar as they would become beneficiaries of any damages that might be awarded by virtue of N.C. Code Ann. \u00a7 8081(r). Upon plaintiff\u2019s motion, the trial court struck Railway\u2019s amended answer as \u201cimmaterial and irrelevant.\u201d Railway appealed to this Court, which explained the theory behind Railway\u2019s amendment as follows:\nThe defendant by leave of court filed an amended answer as set out above and said to the employer in substance: \u201cIf it be conceded that I was negligent, you were also guilty of negligence. If I killed the deceased you participated actively in the killing, and sound public policy, sanctioned and adopted by decisions of the Supreme Court, forbids you to profit by your own wrong or to pluck good fruit from the evil tree of your own planting.\u201d The pertinent idea was declared in Davis v. R. R., 136 N.C. 115, 48 S.E. 591, as follows: \u201cThe underlying principle in our view is that no one shall profit by his own wrong, and if the father\u2019s negligence, and not that of the railroad company, was the proximate cause of the death (under the doctrine of the \u2018last clear chance\u2019), it would be obviously wrong to permit him to put money into his pocket for damages proximately caused by his own negligence, because sued for through an administrator (whether himself or another), yet for his benefit.\u201d [136 N.C. at 87, 48 S.E. at 592.] The same thought was expressed in Goldsmith v. Samet, 201 N.C. 574 [160 S.E. 835] in these words: \u201cIn the instant case, therefore, if recovery were allowed, the amount would be divided between the two wrongdoers. This is also contrary to the policy of the law.\u201d [201 N.C. at 575, 160 S.E. at 835.]\nBrown II, supra, 204 N.C. at 670, 169 S.E. at 420.\nThe Court then held that Railway could amend its answer to raise as a defense that the employer\u2019s negligence caused the employee\u2019s death. As the Court explained:\n[W]hen the employee or his estate has been satisfied, and the employer seeks to recover the amount paid by him, from such third party, his hands ought not to have the blood of the dead or injured workman upon them, when he thus invokes the impartial powers and processes of the law.\n. . . [I]f such defense [contributory negligence of the employer] be not recognized, an employer could by his own negligence participate in the killing or injuring of the workman, pay for it, and then wash his hands of his own wrong merely because he brought a suit against the third party, who also contributed to the injury or death.\nId. at 671, 169 S.E. at 420. Thus, although Chero-Cola could not be made a party defendant, if the defendants proved that CheroCola\u2019s negligence contributed to decedent\u2019s death, Chero-Cola could not recover its subrogated interest, and the damages awarded plaintiff employee would be reduced by the amount of the employer\u2019s subrogated interest. It was this holding that was codified in 1959 as N.C.G.S. 97-10.2(e).\nWe find that the reasoning of Brown II, supra, applies equally to the instant case. If Stone & Webster, decedent\u2019s employer, negligently contributed to decedent\u2019s death, it would be grossly inequitable not to permit defendants to prove this in a wrongful death action. Further, Stone & Webster might then attempt to recover from the plaintiff an amount equal to the workers\u2019 compensation it had paid. Cf N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 9740.2(f) (1979); Va. Code \u00a7 65.1-41 (1980). The mere fact that Stone & Webster paid decedent\u2019s workers\u2019 compensation claim under Virginia\u2019s workmen\u2019s compensation act will not be allowed to undermine the policies of fairness and the long-standing principle that no one should benefit from his own wrong. Davis v. R. R., 136 N.C. 115, 48 S.E. 591 (1904).\nIn summary, we hold that defendants may raise Stone & Webster\u2019s negligence as a pro tanto defense. Stone & Webster shall not be made a party defendant, although it shall be afforded the opportunity to defend against the allegation of negligence in the manner provided in N.C.G.S. 9740.2(e). The decision of the Court of Appeals is\nReversed.\n. Moreover, even if Virginia law clearly prohibited an employer\u2019s negligence to be litigated for the limited purposes allowed under North Carolina law, under the facts of this case, the governmental interests and public policy of our state would require us to abjure the lex loci delicti commissi rule.\n. If the damage award exceeded the amount of workers\u2019 compensation the employer had paid, the remainder, less costs and attorney\u2019s fees, would be given to the employee or his personal representative. N.C. Code Ann. \u00a7 8081(r) (Supp. 1929).", "type": "majority", "author": "MARTIN, Justice." } ], "attorneys": [ "Smith Moore Smith Schell & Hunter, by McNeill Smith and Gerard H. Davidson, Jr.; Battle, Winslow, Scott & Wiley, P.A., by Marshall A. Gallop, Jr.; Brown and Johnson, by C. K. Brown, Jr.; Wallace Barwick & Landis, P.A., by Fitzhugh E. Wallace; Smith Anderson Blount Dorsett Mitchell & Jemigan, by James G. Billings and Thomas N. Barefoot; Bryant Drew Grill & Patterson, by Victor S. Bryant, Jr.; and Poisson Barnhill & Britt, by Donald E. Britt, Jr., for defendant appellants.", "Young, Moore, Henderson & Alvis, P.A., by Edward B. Clark and B. T. Henderson II, for Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation.", "Haywood, Denny & Miller, by George W. Miller, Jr. and Michael W. Patrick, for plaintiff, amicus curiae." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "MARIE R. LEONARD, Administratrix of the estate of SAMUEL L. LEONARD, Deceased v. JOHNS-MANVILLE SALES CORPORATION, A Delaware Corporation; UNARCO INDUSTRIES, INC., An Illinois Corporation; GAF CORPORATION, A Delaware Corporation; ARMSTRONG CORK COMPANY, A Pennsylvania Corporation; RAYBESTOSMANHATTAN, INC., A Connecticut Corporation; OWENS-CORNING FIBERGLASS CORPORATION, A Delaware Corporation; PITTSBURGH CORNING CORPORATION, A Pennsylvania Corporation; THE CELOTEX CORPORATION, A Delaware Corporation; NICOLET INDUSTRIES, A Pennsylvania Corporation; FORTY-EIGHT INSULATION, INC., An Illinois Corporation; EAGLE-PICHER INDUSTRIES, INC., An Ohio Corporation; STANDARD ASBESTOS & INSULATION CO., A Missouri Corporation; OWENS-ILLINOIS, INC., An Ohio Corporation; H. K. PORTER, A Pennsylvania Corporation; NATIONAL GYPSUM CO., A Delaware Corporation; FIBREBOARD CORPORATION, A Delaware Corporation; GARLOCK, INC., A Foreign Corporation; KEENE CORPORATION, A New Jersey Corporation; NORTH AMERICAN ASBESTOS CORPORATION, A Foreign Corporation; CAREY CANADIAN MINES, LTD., A Foreign Corporation; LAKE ASBESTOS OF QUEBEC, LTD., A Foreign Corporation; AMATEX CORPORATION, A Pennsylvania Corporation; SOUTHERN ASBESTOS COMPANY\nNo. 697PA82\n(Filed 9 August 1983)\n1. Courts \u00a7 21.5\u2014 injury in another state \u2014 what law governs negligence claim\nWhen the injury giving rise to a negligence claim occurs in another state, the law of that state ordinarily will govern resolution of the substantive issues in the controversy. However, if the foreign jurisdiction has no statutory or decisional law on the question involved, the courts of this state will not speculate what law such jurisdiction might adopt and will apply the law of North Carolina.\n2. Master and Servant \u00a7 89.3\u2014 wrongful death action \u2014 concurring negligence by employer who paid workers\u2019 compensation \u2014 pro tanto defense\nIn a North Carolina wrongful death action against the manufacturers of asbestos which allegedly caused decedent\u2019s death by asbestosis, defendant manufacturers were entitled to allege as a pro tanto defense the concurring negligence of decedent\u2019s employer who had paid a Virginia workers\u2019 compensation claim arising from the asbestosis. Although G.S. 97-10.2 does not apply since workers\u2019 compensation was not recovered under the North Carolina act, the policy and reasoning behind this statute apply so that defendants may allege concurring negligence as a defense for the same limited purposes and by the same procedures set forth in the statute.\nOn discretionary review of the decision of the Court of Appeals, 59 N.C. App. 454, 297 S.E. 2d 147 (1982), reversing an order entered by Godwin, J., at the 3 August 1981 Session of Superior Court, Durham County.\nSamuel L. Leonard was a pipefitter and welder for a number of years, during which he was exposed to asbestos while working at several different locations. His last exposure to asbestos occurred while he was employed by Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation (\u201cStone & Webster\u201d) in the state of Virginia. Shortly after he was diagnosed as having asbestosis, Mr. Leonard filed a workers\u2019 compensation claim in Virginia against Stone & Webster and its compensation insurance carrier, Continental Casualty Company. After he testified before the Commission and while his claim was pending, Mr. Leonard died in Durham, North Carolina. On 28 August 1979, the Virginia Industrial Commission awarded Marie B. Leonard, Mr. Leonard\u2019s widow, workers\u2019 compensation of $175 per week for 500 weeks. The Commission also ordered Stone & Webster and Continental Casualty Company to pay all of Mr. Leonard\u2019s medical expenses resulting from his disability, as well as statutory burial expenses.\nMarie B. Leonard was appointed the acting administratrix of the estate of Samuel L. Leonard and on 1 August 1979 filed an action against the defendants in the present case to recover damages for the wrongful death of her husband. Defendants are manufacturers and/or processors and retailers of asbestos products which may have caused Mr. Leonard\u2019s asbestosis and resulting death. On 2 March 1981, defendants moved to amend their answer by adding the following:\nLast Defense\nOn information and belief it is alleged that the employer of plaintiffs intestate, to-wit, Stone & Webster Engineering Corp., at the time of his alleged exposure to asbestos was negligent in that it failed to properly and safely equip plaintiff with the necessary protection. That it provided the orders and directions under which plaintiff worked involving any asbestos that may have been in his work area. That it allowed asbestos products to be used by plaintiff and others on its premises in a manner so as to create a condition of danger for the plaintiff. That as to any asbestos-containing products that may have been shipped, if any, by this answering defendant to the plaintiff\u2019s said employer, although the said employer knew or should have known in the exercise of ordinary care of the general warnings contained on, shipped with and generally noted by any defendant so shipping and others, it still failed to pass on these warnings to plaintiff and others. That it failed to provide suitable training and education for its employees, including the plaintiff\u2019s intestate; and also for its sub-contractors and contractors about the premises or it failed to enforce such safety training and it failed to require the plaintiff and the other employees to keep the premises clean and dust free and in normal good housekeeping and cleanliness.\nThat if this answering defendant was negligent in any regard, which is denied, the aforementioned negligence of Stone & Webster Engineering Corp., the employer of plaintiff\u2019s intestate, was at the least the cause of any injury done to plaintiff\u2019s intestate by asbestos and such negligence of Stone & Webster Engineering Corp. joined and concurred with any denied negligence of this defendant in producing any injuries and damages sustained by plaintiff\u2019s intestate. That under the provisions of NCGS 97-10.2(e) this defendant is entitled to have submitted to the jury an issue as to whether the negligence of the employer joined and concurred with the negligence of this defendant, if any, in producing the damages to plaintiff\u2019s intestate and if such issue should be answered in the affirmative this defendant is entitled to have the verdict reduced by the amount of any worker\u2019s compensation payments or like payments made to plaintiff\u2019s intestate or made on his behalf.\nDefendants\u2019 motion was granted 13 April 1981 and their amended answer ordered served on Stone & Webster. On 26 June 1981, Stone & Webster filed a motion to strike defendants\u2019 last defense on grounds that N.C.G.S. 97-10.2 and the North Carolina Workers\u2019 Compensation Act were inapplicable to the wrongful death action filed by Mrs. Leonard. By order filed 4 August 1981, Judge Godwin denied Stone & Webster\u2019s motion; however, the court did strike the following portion of defendants\u2019 last defense: \u201cunder the provisions of N.C.G.S. 97-10.2(e).\u201d On 2 September 1981, Stone & Webster filed a \u201cResponse,\u201d in which it replied to defendants\u2019 Last Defense as follows:\nFirst Defense\nDefendants\u2019 Last Defense fails to state a claim against Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation upon which relief can be granted, and Stone & Webster moves, pursuant to NCR Civ. P 12(b)(6), that their Last Defense be dismissed.\nSecond Defense\n1. The allegations of the Last Defense are denied.\nWHEREFORE, having responded to the defendants\u2019 Last Defense, Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation prays that it recover from the defendants the full amount of workers\u2019 compensation benefits paid to plaintiff\u2019s intestate or paid on his behalf, interest and attorneys\u2019 fees as allowed by law, and costs.\nAlthough it has never been made a party in this case, Stone & Webster filed a petition for writ of certiorari in the Court of Appeals, arguing that Judge Godwin erred, by failing to strike the whole of defendants\u2019 Last Defense. The Court of Appeals granted Stone & Webster\u2019s petition on 10 September 1981 and, in an opinion filed 16 November 1982, held that the trial court erred in denying Stone & Webster\u2019s motion to strike defendants\u2019 last defense. We granted defendants\u2019 petition for discretionary review 8 March 1983.\nSmith Moore Smith Schell & Hunter, by McNeill Smith and Gerard H. Davidson, Jr.; Battle, Winslow, Scott & Wiley, P.A., by Marshall A. Gallop, Jr.; Brown and Johnson, by C. K. Brown, Jr.; Wallace Barwick & Landis, P.A., by Fitzhugh E. Wallace; Smith Anderson Blount Dorsett Mitchell & Jemigan, by James G. Billings and Thomas N. Barefoot; Bryant Drew Grill & Patterson, by Victor S. Bryant, Jr.; and Poisson Barnhill & Britt, by Donald E. Britt, Jr., for defendant appellants.\nYoung, Moore, Henderson & Alvis, P.A., by Edward B. Clark and B. T. Henderson II, for Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation.\nHaywood, Denny & Miller, by George W. Miller, Jr. and Michael W. Patrick, for plaintiff, amicus curiae." }, "file_name": "0091-01", "first_page_order": 119, "last_page_order": 130 }