Court Opinion

ID: 9620377
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 05:41:43.92437+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:04:49.819931
License: Public Domain

Judge Greene
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
For the reasons given by the majority, I agree that summary judgment for Zarn must be affirmed. I do not agree, however, that summary judgment for Barnett is appropriate.
*381As a fellow employee, Barnett is liable for injuries sustained by plaintiff if those injuries are proximately caused by Barnett’s conduct and if the conduct “threatens the safety” of the plaintiff and is “reckless or manifestly indifferent to [its] consequences.” Pleasant v. Johnson, 312 N.C. 710, 715, 325 S.E.2d 244, 248 (1985). I believe the evidence presented at the summary judgment hearing, when considered in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, presents a genuine issue of fact with regard to whether Barnett’s conduct threatened the safety of plaintiff and was manifestly indifferent to the consequences.
The evidence, in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, reveals that Barnett, while demonstrating to the plaintiff the proper use of the machine, “reached under the gate and appeared to reach into the area of the mold 1 to pull the part from the machine [emphasis added].” The evidence of Barnett is that although she told plaintiff she could reach under the safety gate and “grab the excess flashing ... to pull it out of the machine,” she never instructed plaintiff to reach into the area of the mold. There thus exists a factual dispute as to the instructions Barnett gave to the plaintiff. If the instructions were as contended by plaintiff, they threatened her safety and were manifestly indifferent to the likelihood of harm to her. This is so because there is no dispute in the evidence that the mold of the machine regularly opened and closed and that a hand caught in the mold would be seriously injured. In this case, plaintiff’s hand was caught in the mold and seriously injured.
For the reasons given, I would reverse the entry of summary judgment for Barnett and remand for trial.

. Because the mold is located behind the safety gate, which is closed during the operation of the machine, the mold was not visible to plaintiff when Barnett instructed plaintiff on the use of the machine.