Title: Echols v. Zarn, Inc.

State: north-carolina

Issuer: North Carolina Supreme Court

Document:

463 S.E.2d 228 (1995) 342 N.C. 184 Cynthia L. ECHOLS v. ZARN, INC. and Edith Barnett No. 538A94. Supreme Court of North Carolina. November 3, 1995. *229 Patterson, Harkavy & Lawrence by Donnell Van Noppen III, Melinda Lawrence, and Maxine Eichner, Raleigh, for plaintiff-appellant. Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice by Reid C. Adams, Jr. and Jonathan B. Mason, Winston-Salem, for defendant-appellee. PER CURIAM. With respect to plaintiff's first assignment of error as to whether she may maintain this action for damages against her co-employee, Edith Barnett, pursuant to the holding in Pleasant v. Johnson, 312 N.C. 710, 325 S.E.2d 244 (1985), we affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals. With respect to plaintiff's second assignment of error as to whether she may maintain this action against her employer, Zarn, Inc., pursuant to the holding in Woodson v. Rowland, 329 N.C. 330, 407 S.E.2d 222 (1991), we also affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals. However, as we did in Mickles v. Duke Power Company, 342 N.C. 103, 463 S.E.2d 206 (1995), we disavow the language of the Court of Appeals in Echols v. Zarn, Inc., 116 N.C.App. 364, 378, 448 S.E.2d 289, 297 (1994), suggesting that the Restatement (Second) of Torts illustrates misconduct which satisfies Woodson's "substantial certainty" test. Restatement (Second) of Torts provides as follows: Restatement (Second) of Torts § 8A illus. 1 (1965). As we stated in Mickles, Mickles, 342 N.C. at 110, 463 S.E.2d at 211. AFFIRMED. ORR, J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.