Court Urged to Uphold $2.5M Verdict in Farmworker Injury Case

Robbie Plyler, a North Carolina farmworker, is fighting to uphold a $2.5 million jury award after losing his foot in a grain auger accident at Cox Brothers Farms. Plyler and his wife, Deborah, argue that the farm's attempt to overturn the verdict is based on mischaracterizations of their case rather than substantive legal grounds.

In a reply brief filed Wednesday, the Plylers responded to Cox Brothers’ appeal, which accused them of omitting key facts and presenting unreliable evidence. The couple insists their statement of the case is accurate and that the jury correctly found the farm at least partially responsible for the injury. They also defended the lower court’s decision to apply the last clear chance doctrine, which allowed them to overcome contributory negligence claims.

The Injury and Negligence Claims

Plyler was working as a maintenance employee at Cox Brothers Farms—a large-scale agricultural operation in North Carolina—when he stepped through an opening in a grain silo floor in 2020. An exposed auger severed his lower right leg.

The farm admitted that it had removed a central safety bar from the opening, which the jury found contributed to Plyler’s injury. While the jury acknowledged that Plyler also bore some responsibility, they ultimately applied the last clear chance doctrine, determining that the farm had sufficient time to warn him about the missing safety bar but failed to do so.

As a result, Plyler was awarded $2 million in compensatory damages, while his wife received $500,000 for loss of consortium. The jury, however, cleared the farm of gross negligence and did not impose punitive damages.

The Appeal and Disputed Legal Arguments

On appeal, Cox Brothers Farms and its owners—including Russell, Delano, Marion, and Campbell Cox—contend that the jury’s verdict resulted from multiple legal errors. The farm argues that the district court should have granted judgment as a matter of law regarding the last clear chance doctrine, effectively precluding the jury from ruling in the Plylers' favor.

The farm also accuses the Plylers of making misleading statements about the case, particularly regarding why the safety bar was removed. The Plylers claimed it was taken out to improve grain flow, while Cox Brothers argued it was meant to prevent grain from clumping. The couple countered that the two explanations are not mutually exclusive, stating, “Grain necessarily flows easier when it is not clogged.”

Additionally, the farm disputes Plyler’s testimony that he was unaware of the missing safety bar. However, the Plylers maintain that the dusty conditions inside the silo would have prevented him from seeing the removed barrier unless he had physically bent down to inspect the opening.

Potential Next Steps

The Plylers assert that there was ample evidence to support the jury’s verdict, but if the Fourth Circuit disagrees, they argue the appropriate remedy should be a new trial, rather than a judgment in favor of Cox Brothers.

If a retrial is granted, the Plylers want the jury to be informed that the farm did not report the accident to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). They further allege that a Cox family member actively discouraged Debbie Plyler from reporting the incident, which they argue demonstrates the farm’s reckless indifference.

“While defendants-appellants’ lack of OSHA reporting and discouraging Debbie to report to OSHA may not constitute willful and wanton conduct in and of itself, it is evidence of defendants-appellants’ reckless indifference and culpable state of mind,” the Plylers wrote in their reply brief.

Law Firms Involved

Robbie and Deborah Plyler are represented by Preston O. Odom III, Jennifer M. Houti, and J. Alexander Heroy of James McElroy & Diehl PA.

Cox Brothers Farms and the individual appellants are represented by Christopher P. Raab and L. Cameron Caudle Jr. of Caudle & Spears PA.

What’s Next?

The Fourth Circuit will now review the parties’ arguments to determine whether to uphold the jury’s $2.5 million award or grant Cox Brothers’ appeal. If the court finds procedural errors in the lower court’s application of the last clear chance doctrine, a new trial could be ordered, potentially allowing additional evidence about OSHA reporting to be introduced.

The case is Robbie Plyler v. Russell Cox, case numbers 24-1488 and 24-1445, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.