{
  "id": 795931,
  "name": "DORA POWELL, As Administratrix of the Estate of TIMOTHY GWAN POWELL (Deceased) v. S & G PRESTRESS COMPANY, THE ARUNDEL COMPANY, MICHAEL MEANS and RICHARD SCHOUTEN",
  "name_abbreviation": "Powell v. S & G Prestress Co.",
  "decision_date": "1995-11-03",
  "docket_number": "No. 260A94",
  "first_page": "182",
  "last_page": "183",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "342 N.C. 182"
    }
  ],
  "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": "442 S.E.2d 143",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1994,
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "114 N.C. App. 319",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8527535
      ],
      "year": 1994,
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/114/0319-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "49 ALR4th 926",
      "category": "reporters:specialty",
      "reporter": "A.L.R. 4th",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "96 ALR3d 1064",
      "category": "reporters:specialty",
      "reporter": "A.L.R. 3d",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "407 S.E.2d 222",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1991,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "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"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "463 S.E.2d 206",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1995,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "342 N.C. 103",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        795996
      ],
      "year": 1995,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/342/0103-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 211,
    "char_count": 2430,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.738,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.03808705669555e-07,
      "percentile": 0.5500606406010543
    },
    "sha256": "dc52ed269f7c3f298627e034e62966cff7edcd2fbba9f8ec6f0c2443ace4f07d",
    "simhash": "1:837162bf0367d7df",
    "word_count": 384
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:36:26.105751+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Justice ORR did not participate in the consideration or decision of this opinion."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "DORA POWELL, As Administratrix of the Estate of TIMOTHY GWAN POWELL (Deceased) v. S & G PRESTRESS COMPANY, THE ARUNDEL COMPANY, MICHAEL MEANS and RICHARD SCHOUTEN"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PER CURIAM.\nThe decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.\nHowever, as in Mickles v. Duke Power Co., 342 N.C. 103, 463 S.E.2d 206 (1995), we disavow the language of the Court of Appeals in its decision in this case suggesting that Restatement (Second) of Torts \u00a7 8A illus. 1 (1965) is illustrative of the type of conduct required to satisfy the \u201csubstantial certainty\u201d test of Woodson v. Rowland, 329 N.C. 330, 407 S.E.2d 222 (1991).\nAFFIRMED.\nJustice ORR did not participate in the consideration or decision of this opinion.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PER CURIAM."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "William H. Dowdy for plaintiff-appellant.",
      "Johnson & Lambeth, by Beth M. Bryant and Robert White Johnson, for defendant-appellees.",
      "Patterson, Harkavy & Lawrence, by Burton Craige, for the North Carolina Academy of Trial Lawyers, amicus curiae.",
      "Cranfill, Sumner & Hartzog, L.L.P., by David H. Batten and Edward C. LeCarpentier III, for the North Carolina Association of Defense Attorneys, amicus curiae."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "DORA POWELL, As Administratrix of the Estate of TIMOTHY GWAN POWELL (Deceased) v. S & G PRESTRESS COMPANY, THE ARUNDEL COMPANY, MICHAEL MEANS and RICHARD SCHOUTEN\nNo. 260A94\n(Filed 3 November 1995)\nWorkers\u2019 Compensation \u00a7 62 (NCI4th)\u2014 Woodson claim not maintainable \u2014 language disavowed\nThe decision of the Court of Appeals that .plaintiff may not maintain this Woodson action against the employer of her intestate is affirmed. However, language in the Court of Appeals decision suggesting that the Restatement (Second) of Torts \u00a7 8A illus. 1 illustrates the type of conduct required to satisfy the Woodson \u201csubstantial certainty\u201d test is disavowed.\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.\nWorkers\u2019 compensation law as precluding employee\u2019s suit against employer for third person\u2019s criminal attack. 49 ALR4th 926.\nJustice Orr did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.\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, 114 N.C. App. 319, 442 S.E.2d 143 (1994), affirming orders of summary judgment for the defendants entered by Brown (Frank R.), J., on 15 February 1993 and 18 February 1993 in Superior Court, New Hanover County, and by DeRamus, J., on 11 March 1993 in Superior Court, New Hanover County. Heard in the Supreme Court on 11 September 1995.\nWilliam H. Dowdy for plaintiff-appellant.\nJohnson & Lambeth, by Beth M. Bryant and Robert White Johnson, for defendant-appellees.\nPatterson, Harkavy & Lawrence, by Burton Craige, for the North Carolina Academy of Trial Lawyers, amicus curiae.\nCranfill, Sumner & Hartzog, L.L.P., by David H. Batten and Edward C. LeCarpentier III, for the North Carolina Association of Defense Attorneys, amicus curiae."
  },
  "file_name": "0182-01",
  "first_page_order": 214,
  "last_page_order": 215
}