Workers' Compensation § 62 (NCI4th) — Woodson claim not maintainable — language disavowed The decision of the Court of Appeals that plaintiff may not maintain this Woodson action against the employer of her intestate is affirmed. However, language in the Court of Appeals decision suggesting that the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 8A illus. 1 illustrates the type of conduct required to satisfy the Woodson "substantial certainty" test is disavowed.
Am Jur 2d, Workers' Compensation §§ 75-87.
What conduct is willful, intentional, or deliberate within workmen's compensation act provision authorizing tort action for such conduct. 96 ALR3d 1064.
Workers' compensation law as precluding employee's suit against employer for third person's criminal attack. 49 ALR4th 926.
Justice ORR did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.
PER CURIAM.
The decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.
However, as in Mickles v. Duke Power Co., 342 N.C. 103, 463 S.E.2d 206 (No. 433PA94, filed this date), we disavow the language of the Court of Appeals in its decision in this case suggesting that Restatement (Second) of Torts § 8A illus. 1 (1965) is illustrative of the type of conduct required to satisfy the "substantial certainty" test of Woodson v. Rowland, 329 N.C. 330, 407 S.E.2d 222 (1991).
AFFIRMED.