Dodson v. Dubose Steel, Inc.
North Carolina Supreme Court
591 S.E.2d 548, 358 N.C. 129 (2004)
- Written by Serena Lipski, JD
Facts
John Dodson was employed by Dubose Steel, Inc. (Dubose) (defendant) as a long-distance truck driver. While driving a truck for Dubose, Dodson merged into the lane where Troy Campbell, who had no previous relationship with Dubose, was driving. Dubose merged into the lane despite Campbell’s honking and yelling, and forced Campbell out of his lane. At the next stoplight, Campbell yelled at Dodson for almost hitting him. Dodson exited his truck and yelled at Campbell while hitting the hood of Campbell’s vehicle. Campbell hit Dodson with his car while attempting to drive away, killing Dodson. Dodson’s widow, Shelby Dodson (plaintiff), filed a claim for workers’-compensation death benefits. The North Carolina Industrial Commission (the commission) found the claim was compensable. The commission concluded the root cause of the dispute was Dodson’s merging, and Dodson’s death was caused by an assault that originated while Dodson was performing his duties. The commission further concluded that as a long-distance truck driver, Dodson had an increased risk for road-rage incidents and being hit. Dubose appealed, arguing that Dodson’s injuries did not arise out of his employment because they were a result of personal conduct, and that the claim was therefore barred by a North Carolina statute prohibiting death benefits if the worker’s death was proximately caused by the worker’s willful intention to injure or kill another person.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning ()
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.