The mother of a worker who died in a tractor accident failed to show that the actions of his employer were so egregious as to fall outside of the exclusivity provision of the North Carolina Workers Compensation Act.

In Hidalgo v. Erosion Control Services Inc., the North Carolina Court of Appeals on Tuesday unanimously reversed a trial court decision that would have allowed the mother to proceed with her negligence claim.

Jesus Enrique Hidalgo worked for Erosion Control Services Inc., which provides soil and sediment control for construction projects. On July 20, 2016, while he was driving a tractor on a slope at a construction site, the tractor rolled; he was ejected and fatally injured when the tractor rolled on top of him.

His mother, Guadalupe Hidalgo, filed a complaint against Erosion Control, alleging the company was negligent when it replaced its tractor seat with one that did not have a seatbelt and failed to implement safety procedures that would have prohibited her son from operating the tractor on a slope.

Mr. Hidalgo’s supervisor said he was unaware that the seat lacked a seatbelt when he ordered the replacement from eBay and was not present when his crew unpacked and installed the seat. He also said that on the day of the accident there was “no reason” for Mr. Hidalgo to be driving on the slope as it was outside of the designated project area.

The U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration cited  Erosion Control for the lack of a seatbelt and tractor safety measures, but the investigator found no evidence that Mr. Hidalgo had been directed to enter the area where the accident occurred or to work on the slope.

The company argued that Ms. Hidalgo’s lawsuit should be dismissed because it fell within the exclusive remedy of the state Workers Compensation Act, but the trial court dismissed its motion for summary judgment.

The appellate court reversed the decision, holding that Ms. Hidalgo failed to show that the actions of the company and the supervisor were so egregious as to show that her claims fell outside the exclusivity provisions of the act.

The court noted that the record was “devoid” of any indication that Mr. Hidalgo had been directed to drive the tractor on to the slope where the accident occurred, and also showed that no work was occurring in that area on the day of the incident.

Although Ms. Hidalgo contended that the company and her son’s supervisor knew the tractor seat lacked a seatbelt, the appellate court held that even if that were true, it would not meet the threshold to fall outside of the exclusive remedy.

The appellate court, therefore, ruled that the trial court erred in dismissing the company’s motion for summary judgment and reversed the decision and remanded the case.