163 N.C. App. 224 - Cameron v. Merisel, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
2004
Citation profile
12
cited by 12 later decisions
1
states following
February 2013
most recently cited
12 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Woodson v. Rowland · Presnell v. Pell · Nelson v. Freeland · Pleasant v. Johnson · Martishius v. Carolco Studios, Inc.
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“8. On June 17, 2004, Defendant's employees, including the Plaintiff, were transferring existing conductors to a new utility pole. Supervisors for Defendant were on site . . . . 9. These existing conductors were energized with 7200 volts. 10. Plaintiff was working in the bucket of a boom truck and had a section of the un-energized line to be spliced into the hot line in the bucket. This section is also known as the "tail." A lead lineman was working directly above the Plaintiff. 11. Defendant's employees' standard practice was to place the tail of the cable being spliced into the bucket with the employee. 12. The vehicles Defendant's employees were working from were not grounded. 13. Plaintiff was not wearing rubber insulating sleeves because they were not issued by Defendant. 14. Defendant allowed Plaintiff to work too close to energized conductors, although fully aware of said conduct. However, other more experienced employees were allowed to work on de-energized lines. 15. Plaintiff was electrocuted while working on the live line. 16. Defendant Rocky Mount's conduct was intentional and was with the knowledge that its actions were substantially certain to cause serious injury or death and was done with manifest indifference to the consequences to the Plaintiff in that it: a. Allowed the standard operating practice of having the un-energized tail in the bucket with the employee in violation of OSHA regulations and good safety practices; b. Permitted employees to transport a c”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Where a defendant is nothing `more than a related, but separate entity' from the employer, the exclusivity provisions of the Workers' Compensation Act are not an absolute bar to recovery.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.