{
  "id": 796026,
  "name": "CYNTHIA L. ECHOLS v. ZARN, INC. and EDITH BARNETT",
  "name_abbreviation": "Echols v. Zarn, Inc.",
  "decision_date": "1995-11-03",
  "docket_number": "No. 538A94",
  "first_page": "184",
  "last_page": "185",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "342 N.C. 184"
    }
  ],
  "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": "448 S.E.2d 289",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1994,
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "116 N.C. App. 364",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8524101
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/116/0364-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "329 N.C. 330",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2553288
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/329/0330-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "312 N.C. 710",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        4749409
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/312/0710-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "463 S.E.2d 206",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1995,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "211"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "342 N.C. 103",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        795996
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1995,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "110"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/342/0103-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "407 S.E.2d 222",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1991,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "229"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "325 S.E.2d 244",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1985,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "448 S.E.2d 289",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1994,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "297"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "116 N.C. App. 364",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8524101
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "378"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/116/0364-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "329 N.C. 330",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2553288
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "341"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/329/0330-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "312 N.C. 710",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        4749409
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/312/0710-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 250,
    "char_count": 3562,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.733,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 9.746876836889541e-08,
      "percentile": 0.5309506461573629
    },
    "sha256": "88a77fb5f9e6428ea65c92bd5e7942576596cdcfb0d9f765c91b1d52be7343e3",
    "simhash": "1:1f41d597273fe2fc",
    "word_count": 585
  },
  "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 case."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "CYNTHIA L. ECHOLS v. ZARN, INC. and EDITH BARNETT"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PER CURIAM.\nWith respect to plaintiffs first assignment of error as to whether she may maintain this action for damages against her co-employee, Edith Barnett, pursuant to the holding in Pleasant v. Johnson, 312 N.C. 710, 325 S.E.2d 244 (1985), we affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals.\nWith respect to plaintiffs second assignment of error as to whether she may maintain this action against her employer, Zarn, Inc., pursuant to the holding in Woodson v. Rowland, 329 N.C. 330, 407 S.E.2d 222 (1991), we also affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals. However, as we did in Mickles v. Duke Power Company, 342 N.C. 103, 463 S.E.2d 206 (1995), we disavow the language of the Court of Appeals in Echols v. Zarn, Inc., 116 N.C. App. 364, 378, 448 S.E.2d 289, 297 (1994), suggesting that the Restatement (Second) of Torts illustrates misconduct which satisfies Woods cm\u2019s \u201csubstantial certainty\u201d test. Restatement (Second) of Torts provides as follows:\nA throws a bomb into B\u2019s office for the purpose of killing B. A knows that C, B\u2019s stenographer, is in the office. A has no desire to injure C, but knows that his act is substantially certain to do so. C is injured by the explosion. A is subject to liability to C for an intentional tort.\nRestatement (Second) of Torts \u00a7 8A illus. 1 (1965).\nAs we stated in Mickles,\n[according to well-known principles of tort liability, one who intentionally engages in conduct knowing that particular results are substantially certain to follow also intends those results for purposes of tort liability. See Woodson, 329 N.C. at 341, 407 S.E.2d at 229. In the above example, A is actually certain his act will injure or kill C. A successful claim under the Woodson exception does not require such actual certainty.\nMickles, 342 N.C. at 110, 463 S.E.2d at 211.\nAFFIRMED.\nJustice ORR did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PER CURIAM."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Patterson, Harkavy & Lawrence, by Donnell Van Noppen III, Melinda Lawrence, and Maxine Eichner, for plaintiff-appellant.",
      "Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, by Reid C. Adams, Jr., and Jonathan B. Mason, for defendant-appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "CYNTHIA L. ECHOLS v. ZARN, INC. and EDITH BARNETT\nNo. 538A94\n(Filed 3 November 1995)\n1. Workers\u2019 Compensation \u00a7 69 (NCI4th)\u2014 civil action against co-employee not maintainable\nThe decision of the Court of Appeals that plaintiff may not maintain this action for damages against her co-employee pursuant to Pleasant v. Johnson, 312 N.C. 710, is affirmed.\nAm Jur 2d, Workers\u2019 Compensation \u00a7 99.\n2. Workers\u2019 Compensation \u00a7 62 (NCI4th)\u2014 Woodson claim not maintainable \u2014 substantial certainty test \u2014 language disavowed\nThe decision of the Court of Appeals that plaintiff may not maintain this action against her employer pursuant to Woodson v. Rowland, 329 N.C. 330, is affirmed. However, language of the Court of Appeals in Echols v. Zam, Inc., 116 N.C. App. 364, suggesting that the Restatement (Second) of Torts \u00a7 8A illus. 1 illustrates misconduct which satisfies Woodson\u2019s \u201csubstantial certainty\u201d test is disavowed.\nAm Jur 2d, Workers\u2019 Compensation \u00a7 75.\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, 116 N.C. App. 364, 448 S.E.2d 289 (1994), affirming judgment for defendant entered by Albright, J., at the 25 January 1993 Civil Session of Superior Court, Rockingham County. On 2 March 1995, this Court allowed discretionary review of an additional issue. Heard in the Supreme Court 11 September 1995.\nPatterson, Harkavy & Lawrence, by Donnell Van Noppen III, Melinda Lawrence, and Maxine Eichner, for plaintiff-appellant.\nWomble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, by Reid C. Adams, Jr., and Jonathan B. Mason, for defendant-appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0184-01",
  "first_page_order": 216,
  "last_page_order": 217
}