Court Opinion

ID: 9960400
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-16 12:04:54.100478+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:19:25.700590
License: Public Domain

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA

                                No. COA23-1001

                               Filed 16 April 2024

Henderson County, No. 22CVS1618

ADAN RENDON HERNANDEZ, Plaintiff,

            v.

HAJOCA CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, and HAJOCA CORPORATION and
ANDREW WEYMOUTH, Third-Party Plaintiffs,

            v.

ROBERT CRAWFORD, Individually, and ROBERT CRAWFORD d/b/a ROBERT
CRAWFORD MASONRY, Third-Party Defendants.

      Appeal by third-party defendants from order entered 5 June 2023 by Judge

Steve Warren in Henderson County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals

20 March 2024.

      Martineau King PLLC, by Elizabeth A. Martineau, and Geoffrey A. Marcus, for
      the appellee.

      McAngus, Goudelock & Courie, PLLC, by Jeffrey Kuykendall, for the appellant.

      TYSON, Judge.

      Robert Crawford, Individually and Robert Crawford d/b/a Robert Crawford

Masonry (collectively “Third-Party Defendants”) appeal from order entered denying

their motion to dismiss. We reverse and remand with instructions to dismiss the

third-party complaint.
                               HERNANDEZ V. HAJOCA CORP.

                                       Opinion of the Court

                                  I.      Background

         W.D. Building Rentals, LLC owns property located at 1027 Spartanburg

Highway in Hendersonville. W.D. Building Rentals leased this property to Hajoca

Corporation. The adjoining property, 1005 Spartanburg Highway, is owned by Tina

Ward Foster. The property located at 1005 is situated at a higher elevation than

1027, with 1005 being at street level and 1027 being located below the street level

grade.

         A concrete and cinderblock retaining wall delineated the property line of these

properties. The retaining wall is approximately nine feet eight inches high and one

hundred and fifty feet long.

         The effects of a strong storm knocked down a portion of the retaining wall in

the fall of 2020. During and after rainfall, mud and dirt would erode down the slope

into the parking lot of 1027. This debris disrupted Hajoca’s business operations.

         W.D. Building Rentals and Foster were jointly responsible for maintaining and

repairing the retaining wall, but they could not agree upon the steps necessary to

repair the wall’s damaged portions. Mud and dirt continued to erode onto the 1027

property when it rained.

         Foster conveyed her ownership interest in the property containing the

retaining wall to W.D. Building Rentals at no cost. This deed was executed on 17

December 2020 and filed in the Henderson County Registry in Book 3620, Pages 397-

                                              -2-
                             HERNANDEZ V. HAJOCA CORP.

                                   Opinion of the Court

399. Hajoca was responsible for all maintenance of and repairs to the retaining wall

under its lease.

      Robert Crawford Masonry was hired by Hajoca to complete the wall’s masonry

repairs.   Pinnacle Grading Company, Inc. was hired by Hajoca to complete the

grading. Robert Crawford Masonry was instructed to: (1) rebuild only the damaged

portions of the wall; (2) not remove or repair any undamaged portions of the wall; (3)

use the still-existing footings; and, (4) build the new section on top of and tied into

the existing footing.

      Robert Crawford Masonry began masonry work on 23 December 2020 using

prefabricated cinderblocks and steel rebar and completed masonry work on 30

December 2020. A concrete subcontractor “cored the wall” by pouring concrete and

filling the voids in the retaining wall’s newly-installed cinderblocks later that day.

      On 4 January 2021, Pinnacle Grading backfilled the retaining wall with 210

tons of dirt. No further work was performed on the site from 5 January 2021 through

12 January 2021. A labor crew, including Magno Alberto Valedez Sanchez, Adan

Rendon Hernandez (“Plaintiff”), Marcelino Godofredo Rendon Hernandez, and owner

Robert Crawford, arrived on-site 13 January 2021 to complete minor finishing work

on the parking lot near the retaining wall.

      While on-site, the entire section of newly-installed retaining wall snapped from

the old footing and collapsed in one piece onto crewmembers of Robert Crawford

Masonry.    The collapsing wall fell onto and killed Marcelino Godofredo Rendon

                                          -3-
                             HERNANDEZ V. HAJOCA CORP.

                                      Opinion of the Court

Hernandez. The collapse also caused serious injuries to Plaintiff and Magno Alberto

Valdez Sanchez.

      Plaintiff filed a complaint against Hajoca; its manager, Andrew Weymouth,

W.D. Building Rentals; and Pinnacle Grading Company, Inc. on 5 October 2022.

Pinnacle Grading answered on 12 December 2022 and asserted the affirmative

defense of employer negligence. W.D. Building Rentals answered on 14 December

2022 and also asserted the affirmative defense of employer negligence. Hajoca and

Weymouth filed an answer and asserted a third-party complaint for equitable

indemnity and contribution against Third-Party Defendants.

      Third-Party Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the third-party complaint

pursuant to North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6),

arguing the North Carolina Industrial Commission possesses exclusive jurisdiction

and failure to state a claim. See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1, Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6)

(2023). The trial court denied the motions by order entered 5 June 2023. Third-Party

Defendants appealed.

                                II.      Jurisdiction

      An “appeal lies of right directly to the Court of Appeals . . . from any final

judgment of a superior court.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7A-27(b)(1) (2023). “A final judgment

is one which disposes of the cause[s of action] as to all the parties, leaving nothing to

be judicially determined between them in the trial court.” Veazey v. Durham, 231

N.C. 357, 361-62, 57 S.E.2d 377, 381 (1950) (citation omitted).

                                             -4-
                             HERNANDEZ V. HAJOCA CORP.

                                   Opinion of the Court

      “An interlocutory order is one made during the pendency of an action, which

does not dispose of the case, but leaves it for further action by the trial court in order

to settle and determine the entire controversy.”          Id. at 362, 57 S.E.2d at 381.

“Generally, there is no right of immediate appeal from interlocutory orders and

judgments.” Goldston v. American Motors Corp., 326 N.C. 723, 725, 392 S.E.2d 735,

736 (1990). “This general prohibition against immediate appeal exists because there

is no more effective way to procrastinate the administration of justice than that of

bringing cases to an appellate court piecemeal through the medium of successive

appeals from intermediate orders.” Harris v. Matthews, 361 N.C. 265, 269, 643 S.E.2d

566, 568 (2007) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).

      Our Supreme Court has held two circumstances exist where a party is

permitted to appeal an interlocutory order:

                    First, a party is permitted to appeal from an
             interlocutory order when the trial court enters a final
             judgment as to one or more but fewer than all of the claims
             or parties and the trial court certifies in the judgment that
             there is no just reason to delay the appeal. Second, a party
             is permitted to appeal from an interlocutory order when the
             order deprives the appellant of a substantial right which
             would be jeopardized absent a review prior to a final
             determination on the merits.

Jeffreys v. Raleigh Oaks Joint Venture, 115 N.C. App. 377, 379, 444 S.E.2d 252, 253

(1994) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).

      “This Court has appellate jurisdiction because the denial of a motion

concerning the exclusivity provision of the Workers’ Compensation Act affects a

                                          -5-
                               HERNANDEZ V. HAJOCA CORP.

                                     Opinion of the Court

substantial right and thus is immediately appealable.” Fagundes v. Ammons Dev.

Grp., Inc., 251 N.C. App. 735, 737, 797 S.E.2d 59, 532 (2017) (citing Blue Mountaire

Farms, Inc., 247 N.C. App. 489, 495, 786 S.E.2d 393, 398 (2016)). This appeal is

properly before us. Id.

                                     III.    Issues

          Third-Party Defendants argue the trial court erred by denying their Rule

12(b)(1) and (6) motions to dismiss.

                              IV.   Standard of Review

          “Whether a trial court has subject matter jurisdiction is a question of law,

reviewed de novo on appeal.” McKoy v. McKoy, 202 N.C. App. 509, 511, 689 S.E.2d

590, 592 (2010) (citation omitted).

                                     V.     Analysis

          Third-Party Defendants argue the trial court lacks subject matter jurisdiction

and assert the Workers’ Compensation Act vests exclusive jurisdiction over the claims

against them in the Industrial Commission. See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-1 (2023) (the

“Act”).

          The Act provides:

                Every employer subject to the compensation provisions of
                this Article shall secure the payment of compensation to
                his employees in the manner hereinafter provided; and
                while such security remains in force, he or those conducting
                his business shall only be liable to any employee for
                personal injury or death by accident to the extent and in
                the manner herein specified.

                                             -6-
                            HERNANDEZ V. HAJOCA CORP.

                                    Opinion of the Court

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-9 (2023).

      The Act further provides:

             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 representatives as against the
             employer at common law or otherwise on account of such
             injury or death.

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-10.1 (2023).

      The Act represents a legislative policy and statutory compromise between

employers and employees, as a “sure and certain recovery for their work-related

injuries without having to prove negligence on the part of the employer or defend

against charges of contributory negligence.” Whitaker v. Town of Scotland Neck, 357

N.C. 552, 556, 597 S.E.2d 665, 667 (2003). “In return the Act limits the amount of

recovery available for work-related injuries and removes the employee’s right to

pursue potentially larger damages awards in civil actions.” Woodson v. Rowland, 329

N.C. 330, 338, 407 S.E.2d 222, 227 (1991) (citation omitted).

      Subject to two exceptions recognized by our Supreme Court, the exclusivity

provision of the Act precludes common law negligence actions from being asserted

against employers and co-employees, whose negligence caused the injury. Pleasant

v. Johnson, 312 N.C. 710, 713, 325 S.E.2d 244, 247 (1985).

      First, an employee may pursue a civil action against their employer when the

                                           -7-
                             HERNANDEZ V. HAJOCA CORP.

                                   Opinion of the Court

employer “intentionally engages in misconduct knowing it is substantially certain to

cause injury or death to employees and an employee is injured or killed by that

misconduct[.]” Woodson v. Rowland, 329 N.C. at 340, 407 S.E.2d at 228 (explaining

an employee can bring a suit at common law for employer forcing employee to work

in a trench not properly sloped nor reinforced with a trench box, which caved in and

killed the employee).

      Second, an employee may pursue a civil action against a co-employee for their

willful, wanton, and reckless negligence. Pleasant, 312 N.C. at 717, 325 S.E.2d at

250 (allegations of “willful, wanton and reckless negligence” against a co-employee

allows a suit at common law).

      Rule 14 of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure governs impleading and

“permits a defendant in the State courts to sue a person not a party to the action who

is or may be liable to the defendant for all or part of the plaintiff’s claim against the

defendant.” Teachy v. Coble Diaries, Inc., 306 N.C. 324, 329, 293 S.E.2d 182, 185

(1982); see N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 14 (2023). “At the heart of Rule 14 is the

notion that the third-party complaint must be derivative of the original claim.” Ascot

Corp., LLC v. I&R Waterproofing, Inc., 286 N.C. App. 470, 483, 881 S.E.2d 353, 364

(2022); see N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 14.

      “If the original defendant is not liable to the original plaintiff, the third-party

defendant is not liable to the original defendant.” Jones v. Collins, 58 N.C. App. 753,

756, 294 S.E.2d 384, 385 (1982). “The crucial characteristic of a Rule 14 claim is that

                                          -8-
                             HERNANDEZ V. HAJOCA CORP.

                                   Opinion of the Court

defendant is attempting to transfer to the third-party defendant the liability asserted

against defendant by the original plaintiff.” 6 Charles Allen Wright & Arthur R.

Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure § 1446 (3d ed. 2010); see N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1,

Rule 14 (2023).

        Third-Party Defendants can only be hailed into superior court as third-party

defendants, by Hajoca and Weymouth, if Plaintiff can maintain a civil suit against

them.    However, Plaintiff cannot meet either exception created in Woodson or

Pleasant to maintain a suit. Woodson, 329 N.C. at 340-41, 407 S.E.2d at 228

(employee can bring a suit at common law for employer forcing an employee to work

in a trench not properly sloped nor reinforced with a trench box, which caved in and

killed the employee); Pleasant, 312 N.C. at 713, 325 S.E.2d at 247 (no allegations of

“willful, wanton and reckless negligence” against a co-employee trigger the Pleasant

exception).

        The allegations of omission by not securing the rebar deeply enough, not hiring

a civil engineer to review the project, and not getting a building permit, taken as true,

do not establish Third-Party Defendants had intentionally engaged in misconduct

knowing that such conduct was substantially certain to, and, in fact, caused Plaintiff’s

injuries.

        Hajoca and Weymouth’s allegations are not sufficient to state a legally

cognizable claim under either Woodson or Pleasant. Woodson, 329 N.C. at 340-41,

                                          -9-
                            HERNANDEZ V. HAJOCA CORP.

                                   Opinion of the Court

407 S.E.2d at 228; Pleasant, 312 N.C. at 713, 325 S.E.2d at 247. The trial court erred

in denying Third-Party Defendants’ motion to dismiss.

                                VI.    Conclusion

      Third-Party Defendants’ liability to Plaintiff is properly before the Industrial

Commission, as the allegations, taken as true, do not trigger either of the limited

exceptions to the exclusivity provisions of the Act. Woodson, 329 N.C. at 340-41, 407

S.E.2d at 228; Pleasant, 312 N.C. at 713, 325 S.E.2d at 247.

      The order is reversed, and the cause is remanded for order of dismissal of

Third-Party Plaintiffs’ complaint. It is so ordered.

      REVERSED AND REMANDED.

      Judges GRIFFIN and FLOOD concur.

                                          - 10 -