Drewry v. NORTH CAROLINA DEPT. OF TRANSP.
Decision Date | 01 February 2005 |
Docket Number | No. COA03-1390.,COA03-1390. |
Citation | 168 NC App. 332,607 S.E.2d 342 |
Parties | James DREWRY, Administrator of the Estate of Roger McKinley Drewry, Deceased, Plaintiff, v. NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Defendant. |
Court | North Carolina Court of Appeals |
Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Special Deputy Attorney General Robert T. Hargett, for the State.
Reid, Lewis, Deese, Nance & Person, by James R. Nance, Jr., Fayetteville, for plaintiff-appellant. BRYANT, Judge.
James Drewry1 (plaintiff) appeals from an opinion and award of the Full Commission (Commission) filed 30 July 2003 dismissing plaintiff's negligence action against the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) and two of its employees.
This case was heard before a Deputy Commissioner on 14 October 2002. Defendant's motion to dismiss at the close of plaintiff's evidence was granted and an order was filed on 1 November 2002. Upon appeal, the Commission made the following findings to which the plaintiff assigns no error2:
The Commission also found as fact the following, to which plaintiff did assign error:
Based on these findings, the Commission concluded that plaintiff: (1) failed to prove his case by the greater weight of the evidence with respect to the standard of care or duty owed by NCDOT or their employees to either plaintiff-decedent or the public; and (2) failed to prove his case by the greater weight of the evidence that NCDOT's actions were the proximate or the contributing cause of the accident or injuries to plaintiff-decedent. Further, the Commission concluded that plaintiff-decedent was contributorily negligent by having driven in the same location twenty minutes prior to the accident and failing to take driving precautions of a reasonable person given the known road and weather conditions. Plaintiff appeals from the opinion of the Commission.
The dispositive issue for our review is whether the Commission erred in findings of fact # 8 and # 10, respectively, that there was no evidence of a standard of care required by NCDOT for design and maintenance, nor evidence that the water was backed up from the area of the pipe, due to water having entered the roadway from the field.
Plaintiff first argues the Commission erred in findings of fact # 8 and # 10 that there was no evidence of a standard of care required by NCDOT for design and maintenance of water flow vis-a-vis public roads such as N.C. Highway 217. In a related assignment of error, plaintiff argues the Commission erred in findings of fact # 10 that there was no evidence in the record that the water was backed up from the area of the pipe, due to the water having entered the roadway from the field. In these two assignments of error, plaintiff is essentially arguing that NCDOT's failure to install a 42-inch drainage pipe proximately caused Drewry's accident. We disagree.
The [NCDOT] is subject to a suit to recover damages for death caused by its negligence only as is provided in the Tort Claims Act. Davis v. Highway Commission, 271 N.C. 405, 408, 156 S.E.2d 685, 687 (1967). The Tort Claims Act states in part, "the Industrial Commission shall determine whether or not each individual claim arose as a result of the negligence of any officer, employee ... under circumstances where the State of North Carolina, if a private person, would be liable to the claimant in accordance with the laws of North Carolina." N.C. Gen.Stat. § 143-291(a) (2003).
Our Court has previously ruled on the standard of review for tort claims from the Commission. "Under the Tort Claims Act, `when considering an appeal from the Commission, our Court is limited to two questions: (1) whether competent evidence exists to support the Commission's findings of fact, and (2) whether the Commission's findings of fact justify its conclusions of law and decision.'" Smith v. N.C. Dep't of Transp., 156 N.C.App. 92, 97, 576 S.E.2d 345, 349 (2003) (quoting Fennell v. N.C. Dep't of Crime Control & Pub. Safety, 145 N.C.App. 584, 589, 551 S.E.2d 486, 490 (2001)); see N.C.G.S. § 143-293 (2003). Our Supreme Court has explained the role of appellate courts in cases appealed from the North Carolina Industrial Commission holding, an appellate court ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Strickland v. the Univ. of North Carolina At Wilmington
...has held that the public duty doctrine only applies to duty and not causation, Drewry v. N.C. Dept. of Transp., 168 N.C.App. 332, 337–38, 607 S.E.2d 342, 346–47, disc. review denied, 359 N.C. 410, 612 S.E.2d 318 (2005), and that the normal rules of negligence, including proximate cause, app......
-
Scott v. N.C. Department of Correction, No. COA 09-1090 (N.C. App. 4/6/2010)
...the circumstances; and (2) the negligent breach of such duty was the proximate cause of the injury.'" Drewry v. N.C. Dep't of Transp., 168 N.C. App. 332, 337, 607 S.E.2d 342, 346 (2005) (quoting Woolard v. N.C. Dep't of Transp., 93 N.C. App. 214, 217, 377 S.E.2d 267, 269 (1989)). When pursu......
-
Krantz v. Owens
... ... , d/b/a Owens Construction; All American Homes of North Carolina, L.L.C.; Centura Bank, a Banking Corporation; and ... ...
-
Seay v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
...assigned as error are "deemed supported by competent evidence and are binding on appeal." Drewry v. N.C. Dep't. of Transp., 168 N.C.App. 332, 333, 607 S.E.2d 342, 344 n. 2 (2005) (citing Watson v. Employment Sec. Comm'n, 111 N.C.App. 410, 412, 432 S.E.2d 399, 400 (1993)). In the present cas......