Williams v International Paper Company
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure. NO. COA02-187 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS Filed: 3 September 2002 JACQUELYN L. WILLIAMS, Administratrix of the Estate of LARRY WILLIAMS, Plaintiff, v. New Hanover County No. 98 CVS 1602 INTERNATIONAL PAPER COMPANY and LOUIS GRISSOM, Defendants. Appeal by defendants from order signed 17 September 2001 by Judge Ernest B. Fullwood in Superior Court, New Hanover County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 26 August 2002. Ellis, Hooper, Warlick & Morgan, L.L.P., by John D. Warlick, Jr., and Walker, Clark, Allen, Grice & Ammons, L.L.P., by Robert D. Walker, Jr., for plaintiff-appellee. Smith, Anderson, Blount, Dorsett, Mitchell & Jernigan, L.L.P., by Kirk G. Warner and J. Mitchell Armbruster, and Yates, McLamb & Weyher, L.L.P., by Rodney E. Pettey, for defendant-appellants. WYNN, Judge. Plaintiff Jacquelyn L. Williams, as administratrix of the estate of her husband, Larry Williams, filed a suit against her husband s employer, International Paper Company and its plant manager Louis Grissom. Plaintiff alleged defendants knowingly, willfully and wantonly engaged in negligent conduct knowing it was -2substantially certain to cause serious injury to Larry Williams. Defendants answered and denied the material allegations of the complaint. Defendant Grissom moved to dismiss the action pursuant to N.C.R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and the trial court denied the motion. On 2 May 2001, defendants moved for summary judgment on the grounds that Plaintiff s claim[s] are barred by exclusivity provision of the Workers Compensation Act, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 9710.1, and Plaintiff cannot forecast evidence sufficient to survive summary judgment under the narrow exception to exclusivity announced in Woodson v. Rowland, 329 N.C. 330, 407 S.E.2d 222 (1991). In an order signed 17 September 2001, the trial court denied the motion for summary judgment. Defendants appeal. The denial of summary judgment is not a final judgment, but rather is interlocutory in nature. orders as a matter of course. We do not review interlocutory Veazey v. Durham, 231 N.C. 357, 361- 62, 57 S.E.2d 377, 381, reh'g denied, 232 N.C. 744, 59 S.E.2d 429 (1950). appellant However, if the trial court's decision deprives the of a substantial right which would be lost absent immediate review[,] as defendants suggest, we may review the appeal under N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 1-277(a) and 7A-27(d)(1). N.C. Dept. of Transp. v. Page, 119 N.C. App. 730, 734, 460 S.E.2d 332, 334 (1995). substantial Defendants must show that the affected right is a one, and that deprivation of that right, if not corrected before appeal from final judgment, will potentially injure them. Goldston v. American Motors Corp., 326 N.C. 723, 726, 392 S.E.2d 735, 736 (1990). Whether a substantial right is -3affected is determined on a case-by-case basis. Bernick v. Jurden, 306 N.C. 435, 439, 293 S.E.2d 405, 408 (1982). Defendants argue the denial of their appeal would deny Defendants substantial right conferred under the Workers Compensation Act to have all appropriate claims for on-the-job injuries decided by the well-established forum of the Industrial Commission. The only possible injury defendants will suffer if not permitted immediate appellate review is the necessity of proceeding to trial before the matter is reviewed by this Court. Avoidance of trial is not a substantial right entitling a party to immediate appellate review. Blackwelder v. Dept. of Human Resources, 60 N.C. App. 331, 335, 299 S.E.2d 777, 780 (1983). Based on the foregoing, defendants appeal must be dismissed. decision is consistent with the purpose behind the Our statutes governing appellate procedure which is to "prevent fragmentary, premature and unnecessary appeals by permitting the trial divisions to have done with a case fully and finally before it is presented to the appellate division." Waters v. Personnel, Inc., 294 N.C. 200, 207, 240 S.E.2d 338, 343 (1978). Appeal dismissed. Judges McGEE and CAMPBELL concur. Report per Rule 30(e).
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
