Clodfelter v. State
| Decision Date | 28 February 1882 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | GEORGE W. CLODFELTER v. THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
CLAIM AGAINST THE STATE, heard on complaint and demurrer at February Term, 1882, of THE SUPREME COURT.
Mr. J. B. Batchelor, for plaintiff .
Attorney-General, for the State .
The demurrer to the complaint raises the question of the responsibility of the state for the consequences of the misconduct or negligence of its officers and agents. The plaintiff, a convict sentenced to hard labor in the state prison for a series of years, was assigned to work on the Cape Fear and Yadkin Valley railroad, and, while engaged in blasting rock, by a premature explosion sustained an injury in the loss of both his eyes. The complaint ascribes the explosion to the gross negligence of the supervising manager, under whose authority and control he was placed, in not supplying water in sufficient quantity to use in the operation and prevent the accident. This is the case made in the complaint, and the liability of the state to make compensation is sustained upon the ground of the coerced labor put upon the plaintiff, and the taking from him all volition in avoiding danger and providing for his own safety.
The constitutional provision which confers jurisdiction upon this court “to hear claims against the state” is confined to such as are legal, and could be enforced if the state, like one of its citizens, was amenable to process, and the decision when made is recommendatory merely.
The only question then presented is, whether the state, in administering the functions of government through its appointed agents and officers, is legally liable to a claim in compensatory damages for an injury resulting from their misconduct or negligence.
That the doctrine of respondeant superior applicable to the relations of principal and agent created between other persons, does not prevail against the sovereign in the necessary employment of public agents, is too well settled upon authority and practice to admit of controversy.
“No government,” says Mr. Justice MILLER, “has ever held itself liable to individuals for the misfeasance, laches, or unauthorized exercise of power by its officers and agents.” Gibbons v. United States, 8 Wall., 269. And Judge STORY declares in his work on Agency, section 319: “The government does not undertake to guarantee to any person the fidelity of any of the officers or agents whom it employs, since...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Smith v. State
...Carpenter v. Atlanta & C.A.L. Ry., 184 N.C. 400, 114 S.E. 693 (1922); Moody v. State Prison, 128 N.C. 12, 38 S.E. 131 (1901); Clodfelter v. State, 86 N.C. 51 (1882); 7 Strong's N.C.Index 2d, § 4 The traditional rules governing the State's liability on its contract and its immunity to suit a......
-
Guthrie v. North Carolina State Ports Authority
...We cannot recognize the distinction as affecting the results, nor feel the force of the reasoning by which it is sustained. 86 N.C. 51, 52-53, 41 Am.Rep. 440 (1882). It has long been established that an action cannot be maintained against the State of North Carolina or an agency thereof unl......
-
Sandel v. State
...but only an intention to provide a judicial tribunal whose well-recognized existing liabilities can be adjudicated." In Clodfelter v. State, 86 N. C. 51, 41 Am. Rep. 440, it was held that a constitutional provision which confers jurisdiction upon the court "to hear claims against the state"......
-
Sandel v. State
...but only an intention to provide a judicial tribunal whose well-recognized existing liabilities can be adjudicated ." In Clodfelter v. State, 86 N.C. 51, 41 Am. Rep. 440, was held that a constitutional provision which confers jurisdiction upon the court "to hear claims against the state" is......