## Facts

- Thomas Alfred Sprouse, an employee of Morris Rowland Utility, Inc., was killed in a trench cave-in while working on a sanitary sewer line project in Durham County, North Carolina.
- The project developer retained a general contractor, which subcontracted trench excavation work to Sprouse’s employer; Neal Morris Rowland was the employer’s president and sole shareholder.
- The trench was excavated in highly unstable soil and was deep with vertical walls; it was not properly sloped, shored, braced, or protected by a trench box as required by safety regulations.
- Evidence showed the employer had multiple prior safety citations for trenching and excavation violations in the years preceding the incident.
- Evidence indicated a general-contractor foreman observed the unsafe trench, warned that it was dangerous, and recommended protective measures, but work continued without required precautions.
- The estate filed a wrongful death civil action against the employer, its principal, the general contractor, and the developer; the trial court entered summary judgment for all defendants, and the court of appeals affirmed.

## Issues

1. Whether the Workers’ Compensation Act’s exclusivity provisions bar a wrongful death tort action against an employer when the employer allegedly engaged in intentional misconduct with knowledge it was substantially certain to cause serious injury or death.
2. Whether the forecast of evidence permitted a jury finding that the employer and its principal intentionally engaged in misconduct with knowledge of substantial certainty of serious injury or death.
3. Whether the general contractor could face tort liability based on an alleged breach of nondelegable safety duties associated with inherently dangerous trench excavation.
4. Whether the developer could be liable absent evidence it knew or should have known of the specific unsafe trenching practices or controlled the manner of performance.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of North Carolina held that workers’ compensation exclusivity does not bar a civil action when an employer intentionally engages in misconduct knowing it is substantially certain to cause serious injury or death, and an employee is injured or killed as a result.
- The court reversed summary judgment for Morris Rowland Utility, Inc. and Neal Morris Rowland, holding the evidence was sufficient to go to a jury under the substantial-certainty standard.
- The court reversed summary judgment for the general contractor, holding the evidence created a jury question on breach of nondelegable safety duties tied to inherently dangerous trench work.
- The court affirmed summary judgment for the developer due to insufficient evidence of knowledge, control, or a basis to impose liability for the unsafe trenching conditions.
- The court recognized that the same event may remain an “accident” within workers’ compensation coverage, but a claimant may not obtain double recovery.

## Legal Principles

- Workers’ compensation exclusivity yields only in the narrow circumstance where “an employer intentionally engages in misconduct knowing it is substantially certain to cause serious injury or death to employees and an employee is injured or killed by that misconduct.”
- The substantial-certainty standard is materially higher than negligence or gross negligence; knowledge of mere possibility or probability of injury is insufficient.
- For inherently dangerous work, a general contractor may have a nondelegable duty to take reasonable precautions for safety, and may be liable if it permits work to proceed under obviously unsafe conditions.
- An owner/developer is not liable absent evidence it knew or should have known of the specific danger, retained control over the manner of performance, or otherwise had a recognized duty supporting liability.
- A claimant cannot recover full tort damages and full workers’ compensation benefits for the same injury.

## Conclusion

The court recognized a narrow tort exception to workers’ compensation exclusivity for employer misconduct that is effectively intentional because it is carried out with knowledge of a substantial certainty of serious injury or death; applying that rule, it allowed claims to proceed against the employer, its principal, and the general contractor, but not against the developer.


Woodson v. Rowland, 329 N.C. 330, 407 S.E.2d 222 (1991)