Rose v. Isenhour Brick Tile Co.

2 Citing cases

  1. Richmond v. Indalex Inc.

    1:02CV01036 (M.D.N.C. Mar. 8, 2004)   Cited 20 times
    Granting summary judgment to parent company on ยง 324A claim that promulgation of safety procedures established a duty

    The court held that even if the coemployees "may have known certain dangerous parts of the machine were unguarded when they instructed [the plaintiff] to work at the machine, we do not believe this supports an inference that they intended that [the plaintiff] be injured or that they were manifestly indifferent to the consequences of his doing so."Id. at 238, 424 S.E.2d at 394. A similar holding denying a Woodson claim was reached inRose v. Isenhour Brick Tile Co., 344 N.C. 153, 472 S.E.2d 774 (1996), where an employee was killed while operating a brick-setting machine for his employer, a company that manufactured and distributed brick products. Id. at 154, 156, 472 S.E.2d at 775, 776.

  2. Robertson v. Steris Corp.

    234 N.C. App. 525 (N.C. Ct. App. 2014)   Cited 5 times

    Our Supreme Court has stated that a ruling committed to a trial court's discretion is to be accorded great deference and will be upset only upon a showing that it was so arbitrary that it could not have been the result of a reasoned decision.Rose v. Isenhour Brick & Tile Co., 120 N.C.App. 235, 240, 461 S.E.2d 782, 786 (1995) (citations, internal quotation marks, and some brackets omitted), affirmed,344 N.C. 153, 472 S.E.2d 774 (1996). At the hearing on Temple's motion in the cause, the trial court asked Temple about an incident during discovery when Temple failed to timely disclose a change in certain experts he intended to call.