{
  "id": 2556517,
  "name": "VALLEREE L. OWENS v. W.K. DEAL PRINTING, INC.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Owens v. W.K. Deal Printing, Inc.",
  "decision_date": "1995-02-10",
  "docket_number": "No. 65A94",
  "first_page": "603",
  "last_page": "604",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "339 N.C. 603"
    }
  ],
  "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": "438 S.E.2d 440",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1994,
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "113 N.C. App. 324",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8522087
      ],
      "year": 1994,
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/113/0324-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "96 ALR3d 1064",
      "category": "reporters:specialty",
      "reporter": "A.L.R. 3d",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "329 N.C. 330",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2553288
      ],
      "year": 1991,
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/329/0330-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "424 S.E.2d 391",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1993,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "395"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "333 N.C. 233",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2548756
      ],
      "year": 1993,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "239"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/333/0233-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "407 S.E.2d 222",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1991,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "438 S.E.2d 440",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1994,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "443-45"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "113 N.C. App. 324",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8522087
      ],
      "year": 1994,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "328-32"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/113/0324-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "329 N.C. 330",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2553288
      ],
      "year": 1991,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/329/0330-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 193,
    "char_count": 2507,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.721,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.2246129240071088e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6042809831770115
    },
    "sha256": "a718a58c97c72d19c1ad2c3a4fa18827310a5e416b919b4525ebeaf6d745ecd2",
    "simhash": "1:502d566281b7f65e",
    "word_count": 406
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:14:35.214532+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "VALLEREE L. OWENS v. W.K. DEAL PRINTING, INC."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PER CURIAM.\nFor the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion of Judge Wynn in this case, Owens v. W.K. Deal Printing, Inc., 113 N.C. App. 324, 328-32, 438 S.E.2d 440, 443-45 (1994), the decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed. To the extent that it may be read as implying that actions authorized under Woodson v. Rowland, 329 N.C. 330, 407 S.E.2d 222 (1991), seek recovery for \u201cintentional torts\u201d in the true sense of that term, we do not accept the reasoning of Judge Wynn\u2019s dissent. We reemphasize that plaintiffs in Woodson actions need only establish that the employer intentionally engaged in misconduct and that the employer knew that such misconduct was \u201csubstantially certain\u201d to cause serious injury or death and, thus, the conduct was \u201cso egregious as to be tantamount to an intentional tort.\u201d Pendergrass v. Card Care, Inc., 333 N.C. 233, 239, 424 S.E.2d 391, 395 (1993).\nREVERSED.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PER CURIAM."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Frederick R. Stann and Wallace and Whitley, by Michael Doran, for the plaintiff-appellant.",
      "Alala Mullen Holland & Cooper RA., by H. Randolph Sumner and Jesse V. Bone, Jr., for the defendant-appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "VALLEREE L. OWENS v. W.K. DEAL PRINTING, INC.\nNo. 65A94\n(Filed 10 February 1995)\nWorkers\u2019 Compensation \u00a7 62 (NCI4th)\u2014 Woodson claim \u2014 summary judgment for employer improper\nThe decision of the Court of Appeals that the trial court properly entered summary judgment for defendant employer on plaintiff\u2019s Woodson claim is reversed for the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion except to the extent that it may be read as implying that actions authorized under Woodson v. Rowland, 329 N.C. 330 (1991) seek recovery for \u201cintentional torts\u201d in the true sense of that term. Plaintiffs in Woodson actions need only establish that the employer intentionally engaged in misconduct and that the employer knew that such misconduct was \u201csubstantially certain\u201d to cause serious injury or death and, thus, the conduct was \u201cso egregious as to be tantamount to an intentional tort.\u201d\nAm Jur 2d, Workers\u2019 Compensation \u00a7\u00a7 75-87.\nWhat conduct is willful, intentional, or deliberate within workmen\u2019s compensation act provision authorizing tort action for such conduct. 96 ALR3d 1064.\nAppeal by plaintiff pursuant to N.C.G.S. \u00a7 7A-30(2) from the decision of a divided panel of the Court of Appeals, 113 N.C. App. 324, 438 S.E.2d 440 (1994), affirming an order granting defendant\u2019s motion for summary judgment entered by Caviness, J., on 19 May 1992, in Superior Court, Gaston County. Heard in the Supreme Court 9 January 1995.\nFrederick R. Stann and Wallace and Whitley, by Michael Doran, for the plaintiff-appellant.\nAlala Mullen Holland & Cooper RA., by H. Randolph Sumner and Jesse V. Bone, Jr., for the defendant-appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0603-01",
  "first_page_order": 641,
  "last_page_order": 642
}