 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Poe v. Atlas-Soundelier/American Trading & Production Corp.3/2/1999
stances a person can be an employee of two different employers at the same time. Brown v. Friday Services, Inc., 119 N.C. App. 753, 759, 460 S.E.2d 356, 360, disc. review denied, 342 N.C. 191, 463 S.E.2d 234 (1995); see also 3 Arthur Larson, Larson's Workers' Compensation Law § 48.00 (1991). Plaintiff contends that the provisions of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-93 (1991) required Atlas-Soundelier also to provide workers' compensation coverage for plaintiff, and that because it failed to do so, it is liable to plaintiff "either for compensation under this Article or at law at the election of the injured employee." N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-94(b) (1991). Plaintiff argues that Atlas- Soundelier did not "secure the payment of compensation" as required by the Act. We do not agree.
Under the contract between Atlas-Soundelier and Mega Force, the temporary service was responsible for securing the necessary coverage to protect workers who might suffer loss from an industrial accident. Mega Force carried out its responsibilities and plaintiff has settled with its carrier to receive benefits due him under the Act. A similar situation was before this Court in Brown. The plaintiff in Brown was sent by a temporary service to work for a roofing contractor and was injured on the job . The temporary worker then sued the temporary agency, the roofing contractor and the general contractor. We found that the injured worker in Brown was employed by both the temporary agency and by the roofing contractor. As such, "`joint employer status does not provide an injured plaintiff-employee with two recoveries; rather, it merely provides two potential sources of recovery.' Therefore, once recovery is obtained under the statutory mechanism of workers' compensation, the plaintiff is barred from proceeding against either of his employers at common law." Brown, 119 N.C. at 759, 460 S.E.2d at 360 (citation omitted). The exclusivity provisions of the Act state:
"If the employee and the employer are subject to and have complied with the provisions of this Article, then the rights and remedies herein granted to the employee, his dependents, next of kin, or personal representative shall exclude all other rights and remedies of the employee, his dependents, next of kin, or representative as against the employer at common law or otherwise on account of such injury or death." N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-10.1 (1991).
Thus, any tort suit against the roofing contractor was barred by the exclusivity provisions of the Act. Brown, 119 N.C. App. at 760, 460 S.E.2d at 361.
Plaintiff is simply unable, after voluminous discovery efforts, to explain how the accident occurred and to point to any instance of actionable negligence by any of the defendants. In light of our Conclusion, we need not reach defendants' argument that plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence because of his high blood alcohol reading. Since plaintiff is unable to prove a prima facie case of negligence, we find that plaintiff is unable to satisfy the higher standard of Woodson, which would require proof of intentional wrongdoing by Atlas-Soundelier.
Affirmed.
Judges WYNN and EDMUNDS concur.
|