Could Estate of Worker Killed in Zirconium Conflagration Sue for Negligence?

What Do You Think?

Injured North Carolina workers and their estates can sue their employer for negligence if they can meet the requirements of the Woodson exception to the exclusivity rule. A case involving a worker who died in a fire shows the type of employer misdeeds that might allow a worker (or his estate) to sue.

The employee in that case died in an explosive fire involving the zirconium crusher he was operating. Prior to the incident, the company had received citations from federal and state authorities for various safety violations. None of these citations specifically related to zirconium.

Also, there had been other zirconium fires at the plant. Employees were able to put out those fires with a regular fire extinguisher, with one exception. In the case of the exception, employees had to pull the materials involved in the fire outside the building to let them burn out.

The decedent’s sister sued the employer for negligence. The employer asked the court to throw out the case based on the workers' compensation act's exclusivity rule. That rule generally limits injured employees to workers' compensation benefits.

Under the Woodson exception to the exclusivity rule, an employee may sue for negligence based on a work injury. To do so, he must show the employer engaged in intentional misconduct that was substantially certain to lead to the employee's serious injury or death.

Could the estate sue for negligence?

A. No. The explosion that killed the decedent was far worse than the prior zirconium fires.

B. Yes. The employer had reason to know there would be such an explosion based on the prior incidents with zirconium.

If you selected A, you agreed with the court in Tyson v. ELG Uitca Alloys, Inc., No. COA24-740 (N.C. Ct. App. 06/18/25), which held that the Woodson exception did not apply.

The court acknowledged that there was one previous fire that couldn’t be extinguished with a regular extinguisher. “[H]owever, … that fire was not remotely comparable to an explosion,” the court said.

Thus, the sister failed to show that the employer knew with substantial certainty that a sudden conflagration with the sustained force and intensity of the one that killed the decedent was going to occur.

Because the sister did not establish an essential element of her case, the court sent the lawsuit back to the trial court with instructions to rule in the employer’s favor.

Share This Article: