N.C. Ag. Worker’s Heatstroke Injury doesn’t Show ‘Intentional’ Tort for Exclusive Remedy Purposes

Case File

Although a North Carolina corporation was cited for a previous heat-related death, its failure to follow a series of steps that could have prevented a worker's heatstroke didn't show "intentional" conduct sufficient to bypass the state's exclusive remedy rules.

Case

Moreno v. Florida Orange Gold LLC, No. COA25-574 (N.C. Ct. App. 08/05/26, unpublished)

What Happened?

An agricultural worker suffered heat stroke while working in a North Carolina field. The incident caused him to be hospitalized for almost a year and left him totally and permanently disabled, requiring a wheelchair and assistance with everyday functions.

Prior to this incident, another worker died on the job from heatstroke, which prompted the state's Occupational Safety and Health Division to investigate the incident and issue the employer corporation a "serious" citation. According to the citation, the corporation had not furnished to its employees "conditions of employment and a place of employment free from recognized hazards that were causing or were likely to cause death or serious injury or serious physical harm to employees in that employees were exposed to heat-related hazards associated with working in a hot environment."

Specifically, employees worked outside in conditions with heat indices up to 108 degrees Fahrenheit, but the corporation "had not developed a heat stress prevention program to recognize and prevent heat-related illnesses and hazards associated with working in a hot environment."

A follow-up inspection from the state OSHA found that the hazards had been abated.

Nonetheless, on the day when the worker collapsed, no one called 911, and a coworker transported him to the hospital in the bed of his pickup truck rather than the air-conditioned cab. When they reached the hospital, the worker was unresponsive, covered in vomit, and had a body temperature of 109.

The worker received workers' compensation for his injury and also brought a tort claim against the corporation.

The corporation moved to dismiss the claim, asserting that the North Carolina Workers' Compensation Act was the worker's exclusive remedy.

The trial court ruled in the corporation's favor, prompting the worker to appeal, arguing that the corporation failed to enforce its heat stress program and that, the evidence, particularly in light of the earlier employee death from heat stroke, fell within the exception to the Workers' Compensation Act's exclusivity provisions.

Rule of Law

In Woodson v. Rowland, 407 S.E. 2d 222 (N.C. 1991), the North Carolina Supreme Court set out an exception to the Act's exclusivity provision, holding an employee who receives workers' compensation under the Act may also pursue a civil action against his employer when the 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."

What the North Carolina Court of Appeals Said

The court found that the evidence was insufficient to demonstrate that the corporation "intentionally engaged in misconduct knowing that it was substantially certain to cause serious injury or death. The court viewed Woodson as involving an extraordinary workplace hazard where catastrophic injury was virtually inevitable, whereas the record here showed employees had worked under similar conditions on other days without heat-related injury.

In reaching its decision, the court analyzed on-point precedent as follows:

Patstva v. Naegele Outdoor Advertising, Inc., 121 N.C. App. 656 (N.C. Ct. App. 1996). The court reversed the trial court's dismissal of the plaintiff's Woodson claim for failure to state a claim. In a concurring opinion, Judge Wynn noted, in the five years since Woodson had been decided, "the Court has consistently pointed out facts that do not establish a Woodson claim. However, it remains an uncertainty as to what facts do allege a Woodson claim sufficient to overcome pretrial dismissal."

Kolbinsky v. Paramount Homes, Inc., 485 S.E. 2d 900 (N.C. Ct. App. 1997). The employee of an independent contractor sued after he severed a portion of his hand while cutting plywood with a circular saw. The evidence showed the independent contractor was aware a guard had been removed from the circular saw, which violated OSHA regulations; the independent contractor nonetheless allowed the employee to use the saw; the independent contractor may have been aware the employee was a minor; and employing a minor to operate a circular saw was a violation of child labor regulations. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the independent contractor and the appellate court affirmed, agreeing the evidence "failed to show that [the independent contractor] engaged in intentional misconduct knowing that such conduct was substantially certain to cause serious injury or death."

Pendergrass v. Card Care, Inc., 424 S.E. 2d 391 (N.C. 1993). The plaintiff "alleged that he was injured when the employer directed him to work at a machine when it knew that certain dangerous parts of the machine were unguarded, in violation of OSHA regulations and industry standards." The North Carolina Supreme Court held that although the employer "may have known certain dangerous parts of the machine were unguarded when they instructed [the employee] to work at the machine, we do not believe this supports an inference that they intended that [the employee] be injured or that they were manifestly indifferent to the consequences of his doing so."

Hidalgo v. Erosion Control Services, Inc., 847 S.E. 2d 53 (N.C. Ct. App. 2020). The employee was killed after he had been operating a tractor on a steep slope when it started to roll, ejecting him from the tractor and causing fatal injuries when the tractor rolled on top of him. The employer had previously replaced the tractor seat with one that did not have a seatbelt, which was an OSHA violation. In reversing the trial court's denial of the employer's motion for summary judgment, the court noted, "While the lack of a seatbelt created an unsafe condition and may well have made serious injury or death more likely or even probable in the event of an accident, in light of the high bar set by our Supreme Court in Woodson and Whitaker, this fact alone does not support Plaintiff's argument the lack of seatbelt made it substantially certain death or serious injury would occur when operating the tractor."

In the instant case, as opposed to the situation in the Woodson case that involved an "experienced construction worker with knowledge about soil composition and the dangers associated with deep-ditch trenching" testified it was substantially certain "a cave-in resulting in serious injury or death" would have resulted from the employer's failure to follow proper trenching safety protocols, the record showed "multiple other days where the crew was working under similar conditions" with no indication anyone suffered from heat-related illness in those incidents.

"As in Hidalgo, [the corporation's] failure to fully implement its heat stress prevention plan may have been negligent, but we cannot say this failure made it substantially certain death or serious injury would occur," the court wrote.

The court acknowledged that the corporation made "numerous, flagrant" missteps leading to the worker's injury, including:

(1) Failing to monitor and brief its employees on the daily weather conditions

(2) Allowing the worker and his coworkers to work on the day at issue while heat indices ranged from 91 to 102.5 degrees

(3) Failing to have a supervisor onsite

(4) Failing to call 911 after learning of the worker's condition

(5) Failing to have an address for the field in which the crew was working to provide emergency responders, had they been called

(6) Leaving the worker in the heat instead of moving him to an air-conditioned environment when one became available

(7) Failing to use a buddy system for workers to monitor each other

In the court's view, these errors were serious but did not rise to the level of "intentional."

"We are conscious these failures exposed [the worker] and his fellow crew members to recognized hazards associated with working in a hot environment," the court wrote. "However, we are constrained to conclude, as in Kolbinsky, Pendergrass, and Hidalgo, the evidence does not support an inference [the corporation] intended for [the worker] to be injured or that [the corporation] was manifestly indifferent to the consequences of failing to fully implement its heat stress prevention plan."

Verdict: The North Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's order.

Takeaway

North Carolina courts continue to view the Woodson exception as "narrow" and "exacting." Even where an employer had previously experienced a heat-related fatality, received an OSHA citation, and allegedly failed to implement critical heat-safety and emergency-response measures, those facts were insufficient to show the employer intentionally engaged in misconduct with knowledge that serious injury or death was substantially certain to occur. As a result, the employee's remedies remained confined to the Workers' Compensation Act.

Share This Article: