Buie v. Daniel Intern. Corp.
| Decision Date | 16 March 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. 8110SC494,8110SC494 |
| Parties | Francis D. BUIE v. DANIEL INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, d/b/a Daniel Construction Co. |
| Court | North Carolina Court of Appeals |
Sanford, Adams, McCullough & Beard by Charles H. Montgomery, Catherine B. Arrowood and Renee J. Montgomery, Cary, for plaintiff-appellant.
Thompson, Mann & Hutson by George J. Oliver and Susan L. Hartzoge, Greensboro, for defendant-appellee.
In this case we are called upon first to decide whether punitive damages may be recovered in an action based on an employee's discharge for seeking workers' compensation benefits.
Plaintiff argues that the trial court erred in granting defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiff's punitive damages claim, contending that N.C.G.S. 97-6.1 does not preclude an award of punitive damages. We disagree.
As plaintiff correctly points out, G.S. 97-6.1 was passed by the legislature in response to this Court's holding in Dockery v. Table Co., 36 N.C.App. 293, 244 S.E.2d 272 (1978). The Dockery opinion stated that no private cause of action existed under North Carolina law for an employee's dismissal in retaliation for claiming workers' compensation benefits. The legislature expressly created such a right, with the passage of G.S. 97-6.1, in the next session of the General Assembly. However, the wording of the statute clearly limits recovery to damages "suffered by the employee" as a result of the employer's violation of the Workers' Compensation Act. G.S. 97-6.1(b).
Punitive damages, by their very nature, are not damages "suffered" by anyone. Rather, they are damages awarded to punish a wrongdoer, over and above the amount required to compensate for the injury. Whether, as plaintiff argues, the purpose of the Workers' Compensation Act would be better served by the threat of punitive damages for its violation is not for this Court to decide. We are bound by the wording of G.S. 97-6.1, and any amendment thereto is within the realm of the legislature.
Plaintiff's second argument is that the trial court erred in dismissing his claim for treble damages for defendant's alleged unfair trade practices in violation of G.S. 75-1.1. In support of this argument, plaintiff correctly notes that the scope of the statute was expanded by amendment in 1977 to apply to unfair practices "in or affecting commerce," whereas the earlier version of the statute had set forth a more limited prohibition of "unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce." Plaintiff contends that the more expansive language of the current statute is broad enough to encompass "all forms of business activities, including employment practices." We conclude otherwise.
The 1977 statutory amendment to which plaintiff refers was passed in direct response to our Supreme Court's ruling in State ex rel. Edmisten v. J. C. Penney Co., 292 N.C. 311, 233 S.E.2d 895 (1977). Overruling this Court, our Supreme Court, in Penney, held that G.S. 75-1.1 as then worded was so narrow in its application that financing practices pursuant to credit sales by...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wilson v. Wilson-Cook Medical, Inc.
...§ 75.1-1, N.C.'s Unfair Trade and Deceptive Practices Act, does not apply to the employer-employee relationship. Buie v. Daniel Int'l Corp., 56 N.C.App. 445, 289 S.E.2d 118, disc. review denied 305 N.C. 759, 292 S.E.2d 574 Nevertheless, that part of count three which alleges unfair trade pr......
-
Belk, Inc. v. Meyer Corp.
...38 N.C.App. 414, 248 S.E.2d 567, 570 (1978) (commodities transactions do not fall within the statute's scope); Buie v. Daniel Int'l Corp., 56 N.C.App. 445, 289 S.E.2d 118 (1982) (employer-employee relationships do not fall within the statute's scope). 20. The Sideshow court explained that N......
-
In re Cinar Corp. Securities Litigation
...v. E.F.Hutton & Co., 314 N.C. 267, 274-75, 333 S.E.2d 236, 241 (1985) (securities fraud not covered); Buie v. Daniel Int'l Corp., 56 N.C.App. 445, 447-48, 289 S.E.2d 118, 119-20 (1982) (employment disputes not covered). North Carolina courts reason that the legislature did not intend to ext......
-
Carcano v. Jbss, LLC
...692, 694 (2003) (Act does not apply to matters of internal corporate management, which do not affect commerce); Buie v. Daniel International, 56 N.C.App. 445, 289 S.E.2d 118, disc. review denied, 305 N.C. 759, 292 S.E.2d 574 (1982) (Act does not apply to employer-employee relations) with Un......
-
North Carolina. Practice Text
...of limitations began to run, court would have to know when plaintiff discovered defendant’s unfair and deceptive trade practices). 230. 289 S.E.2d 118 (N.C. Ct. App. 1982). 231. Id. at 119. North Carolina 36-25 The state supreme court, however, cast doubt on Buie in Sara Lee Corp. v. Carter......
-
North Carolina
...into the contract. The agency can sue within six years of the date of accrual of the cause of action. N.C. GEN. STAT. § 133-28(c). 206. 289 S.E.2d 118 (N.C. Ct. App. 1982). 207. Id. at 119. North Carolina 36-23 violated Section 75-1.1 when it fired him based on his attempt to claim workers’......
-
Expanded Standing Under the Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices Act and Possible Employee Actions Under the Act
...contract disputes between employers and the employees who work in the employer’s organization. . . .”); Buie v. Daniel Int’l Corp., 289 S.E.2d 118, 120 (N.C. Ct. App. 1982) (“Employment practices fall within the purview of other statutes adopted for that express purpose.”); 2012] COMMENT 53......