JACQUELYN L. WILLIAMS,
Administratrix of the Estate
of LARRY WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff,
v. New Hanover County
No. 98 CVS 1602
INTERNATIONAL PAPER COMPANY
and LOUIS GRISSOM,
Defendants.
Ellis, Hooper, Warlick & Morgan, L.L.P., by John D. Warlick,
Jr., and Walker, Clark, Allen, Grice & Ammons, L.L.P., by
Robert D. Walker, Jr., for plaintiff-appellee.
Smith, Anderson, Blount, Dorsett, Mitchell & Jernigan,
L.L.P., by Kirk G. Warner and J. Mitchell Armbruster, and
Yates, McLamb & Weyher, L.L.P., by Rodney E. Pettey, for
defendant-appellants.
WYNN, Judge.
Plaintiff Jacquelyn L. Williams, as administratrix of the
estate of her husband, Larry Williams, filed a suit against her
husband's employer, International Paper Company and its plant
manager Louis Grissom. Plaintiff alleged defendants “knowingly,
willfully and wantonly engaged in negligent conduct knowing it was
substantially certain to cause serious injury” to Larry Williams.
Defendants answered and denied the material allegations of thecomplaint. Defendant Grissom moved to dismiss the action pursuant
to N.C.R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and the trial court denied the motion.
On 2 May 2001, defendants moved for summary judgment on the
grounds that “Plaintiff's claim[s] are barred by exclusivity
provision of the Workers' Compensation Act, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-
10.1, and Plaintiff cannot forecast evidence sufficient to survive
summary judgment under the narrow exception to exclusivity
announced in Woodson v. Rowland, 329 N.C. 330, 407 S.E.2d 222
(1991).” In an order signed 17 September 2001, the trial court
denied the motion for summary judgment. Defendants appeal.
The denial of summary judgment is not a final judgment, but
rather is interlocutory in nature. We do not review interlocutory
orders as a matter of course. Veazey v. Durham, 231 N.C. 357, 361-
62, 57 S.E.2d 377, 381, reh'g denied, 232 N.C. 744, 59 S.E.2d 429
(1950). However, if “the trial court's decision deprives the
appellant of a substantial right which would be lost absent
immediate review[,]” as defendants suggest, we may review the
appeal under N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 1-277(a) and 7A-27(d)(1). N.C.
Dept. of Transp. v. Page, 119 N.C. App. 730, 734, 460 S.E.2d 332,
334 (1995). Defendants must show that the affected right is a
substantial one, and that deprivation of that right, if not
corrected before appeal from final judgment, will potentially
injure them. Goldston v. American Motors Corp., 326 N.C. 723, 726,
392 S.E.2d 735, 736 (1990). Whether a substantial right is
affected is determined on a case-by-case basis. Bernick v. Jurden,
306 N.C. 435, 439, 293 S.E.2d 405, 408 (1982). Defendants argue the denial of their appeal “would deny
Defendants' substantial right conferred under the Workers'
Compensation Act to have all appropriate claims for on-the-job
injuries decided by the well-established forum of the Industrial
Commission.” The only possible “injury” defendants will suffer if
not permitted immediate appellate review is the necessity of
proceeding to trial before the matter is reviewed by this Court.
Avoidance of trial is not a substantial right entitling a party to
immediate appellate review. Blackwelder v. Dept. of Human
Resources, 60 N.C. App. 331, 335, 299 S.E.2d 777, 780 (1983).
Based on the foregoing, defendants' appeal must be dismissed. Our
decision is consistent with the purpose behind the statutes
governing appellate procedure which is to "prevent fragmentary,
premature and unnecessary appeals by permitting the trial divisions
to have done with a case fully and finally before it is presented
to the appellate division." Waters v. Personnel, Inc., 294 N.C.
200, 207, 240 S.E.2d 338, 343 (1978).
Appeal dismissed.
Judges McGEE and CAMPBELL concur.
Report per Rule 30(e).
*** Converted from WordPerfect ***