Stone v. North Carolina Dept. of Labor
| Decision Date | 06 February 1998 |
| Docket Number | No. 81PA97,81PA97 |
| Citation | 495 S.E.2d 711,347 N.C. 473 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | , 18 O.S.H. Cas. (BNA) 1161, 1998 O.S.H.D. (CCH) P 31,513 Janet B. STONE; Annie B. Locklear; Mary Barbara Washington; Carrie M. Gallops and William E. Peele, Jr., Co-Administrators of the Estate of Rose Gibson Peele; Jimmie Broady, Administrator of the Estate of Minnie Thompson; Lillie B. Davis; Johnny Dawkins; Sharon E. Townsend; Georgia Ann Quick; Ronald Wayne Pool; Alforence Anderson, Administrator of the Estate of Peggy Jean Anderson; David Mack Albright, Administrator of the Estate of David Michael Albright; Fred Ernest Barrington, Sr. and Nelson Barrington; Co-Administrators of the Estate of Josephine Barrington, Pearlie Gagnon, Administratrix of the Estate of John R. Gagnon; Mattie Fairley; Martha Waters; Evelyn Wall; Kenneth White; Conester Williams; John Sanders; Larry Bellamy, Administrator of the Estate of Elizabeth Ann Bellamy; Sarah Williams; Nelson Barrington and Linda Owens, Co-Administrators of the Estate of Fred Barrington, Jr.; Ada Blanchard; Audrey Sue Scott; Letha Terry; Elaine Griffin; Kim Mangus; Sylvia Martin; Gloria Malachi; Alberta Mcrae; Sandra Mcphaul; Evander Lynch, Administrator of the Estate of Janice Lynch; Bernetta Odom; Thomas Oates, III; Katie Nicholson; Pamela Moore; Priscilla Murphy; Sally Murphy; Nora Bush; Thomas Coble; Brenda Chambers, Administratrix of the Estate of Rosie Ann Chambers; Bernard Campbell; Rose Chappell; Martha Nelson, Administratrix of the Estate of Martha Ratliff; Deborah Pittman; Annette Pierce; Zelda Roberts; Richard Roberts; Cleo Reddick; Delores Pauncy; Bobby Quick; Delores Quick; Lula Smith, Administratrix of the Estate of Cynthia Ratliff; Willie Quick; Mary Bryant; Donna Branch Davis; Doris Bostic; Rachel Ingram; Richard M. Lipford; Alice S. Webb, Administratrix of the Estate of Jeffrey A. Webb; Barbara Shaw; Flora C. Banks, Administratrix of the Estate of Margaret Teresa Banks; James Thomas Banks; Linda Carol Ellison; Paul Saunders, Administrator of the Estate of Mary Lillian Wall; Joanne Page, Administr |
On discretionary review pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-31 of a unanimous decision of the Court of Appeals, 125 N.C.App. 288, 480 S.E.2d 410 (1997), affirming a decision of the Industrial Commission denying defendants' motions pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 1A-1, Rules 12(b)(1), (2), and (6), to dismiss plaintiffs' claims. Heard in the Supreme Court 20 November 1997.
Adams, Kleemeier, Hagan, Hannah & Fouts, P.L.L.C. by J. Alexander S. Barrett, Greensboro; Kitchin, Neal, Webb & Futrell by Henry L. Kitchin, Rockingham; Fuller, Becton, Slifkin & Bell by Charles L. Becton, Raleigh; Edward L. Bleynat, Jr., Asheville, and Woodrow W. Gunter, II, Rockingham, for plaintiff-appellees.
Michael F. Easley, Attorney General by David Roy Blackwell, Elisha H. Bunting, Jr., and Ralf F. Haskell, Special Deputy Attorneys General, for defendant-appellants.
Plaintiffs commenced this negligence action against defendants, the North Carolina Department of Labor and its Occupational Safety and Health Division, pursuant to the Tort Claims Act, N.C.G.S. §§ 143-291 to -300.1 (1993) (amended 1994). Plaintiffs sought damages for injuries or deaths resulting from a fire at the Imperial Foods Products plant in Hamlet, North Carolina. Defendants moved, pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 1A-1, Rules 12(b)(1), (2), and (6), to dismiss plaintiffs' claims. Deputy Commissioner D. Bernard Alston denied the motions. The full Commission affirmed and adopted his decision.
The Court of Appeals affirmed. It held that N.C.G.S. § 95-4, which describes the authority, power, and duties of the Commissioner of Labor, imposed a duty upon defendants to inspect the workplaces of North Carolina and that the breach of this duty gave rise to plaintiffs' action for negligence. Stone v. N.C. Dep't of Labor, 125 N.C.App. 288, 291-92, 480 S.E.2d 410, 413 (1997). It further held that the public duty doctrine did not apply to actions brought against the State under the Tort Claims Act. Id. at 291, 480 S.E.2d at 412. On 5 June 1997 this Court granted defendants' petition for discretionary review.
Because these claims arise upon defendants' motions to dismiss, we treat plaintiffs' factual allegations, which follow, as true. See Sorrells v. M.Y.B. Hospitality Ventures of Asheville, 332 N.C. 645, 646, 423 S.E.2d 72, 72 (1992). On 3 September 1991 a fire started in a hydraulic line near a deep fat fryer in the Imperial Foods Products chicken plant (the plant) in Hamlet, North Carolina. The fire grew in intensity and spread rapidly through the interior of the plant. Plaintiffs are either former employees of Imperial Foods who suffered injury in the fire or personal representatives of the estates of employees who died in the fire. They or their decedents (plaintiffs) were lawfully inside the plant at the time of the fire. Plaintiffs could not easily escape the plant or the fire because the exits in the plant were unmarked, blocked, and inaccessible. After the fire the North Carolina Department of Labor and its Occupational Safety and Health Division (defendants) conducted their first and only inspection in the plant's eleven-year history of operation. As a result of this inspection, defendants discovered numerous violations of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of North Carolina (OSHANC), including the plant's inadequate and blocked exits and inadequate fire suppression system. Defendants issued eighty-three citations against Imperial Foods Products for violations of OSHANC standards. Plaintiffs alleged, inter alia, that defendants had a duty under OSHANC to inspect the plant, defendants breached that duty by failing to inspect until after the fire, defendants' breach caused plaintiffs' injuries or deaths, and plaintiffs' injuries or deaths entitle them to damages in tort.
Plaintiffs have asserted a common law negligence action against the State under the Tort Claims Act. To recover damages under the common law of negligence, private parties "must establish (1) a legal duty, (2) a breach thereof, and (3) injury proximately caused by such breach." Kientz v. Carlton, 245 N.C. 236, 240, 96 S.E.2d 14, 17 (1957).
Defendants argue that plaintiffs have failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted because defendants did not owe a duty to the individual plaintiffs due to the public duty doctrine. This doctrine, articulated in Braswell v. Braswell, 330 N.C. 363, 370-71, 410 S.E.2d 897, 901-02 (1991), provides that governmental entities and their agents owe duties only to the general public, not to individuals, absent a "special relationship" or "special duty" between the entity and the injured party. Defendants also contend that because plaintiffs have not stated a claim, the Industrial Commission lacks personal and subject matter jurisdiction over defendants.
The issue, whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the Industrial Commission's denial of defendants' motions to dismiss, requires resolution of three sub-issues. First, does the public duty doctrine apply to claims brought under the Tort Claims Act? Second, if it does, does it apply to state agencies like defendants? Finally, if the doctrine applies, does an exception to it apply as well?
The Tort Claims Act provides that the State is liable "under circumstances where [it], if a private person, would be liable to the claimant in accordance with the laws of North Carolina." N.C.G.S. § 143-291. Defendants recognize that the State, like a private person, may be subject to liability for negligence under the terms of this legislation. They contend, however, that they are not liable to plaintiffs because under the public duty doctrine, they owe no legal duty to the individual plaintiffs. Defendants assert that their obligation under N.C.G.S. § 95-4 to inspect workplaces in North Carolina serves the public at large, not individual employees. See Braswell, 330 N.C. at 370-71, 410 S.E.2d at 901. Plaintiffs assert, and the Court of Appeals held, that the public duty doctrine does not apply to bar plaintiffs' claims because it does not apply to the liability of a private person, and under the Tort Claims Act, the State is liable if a private person would be. We disagree, and we reverse the Court of Appeals.
In construing the Tort Claims Act to determine whether it incorporates the common law public duty doctrine, "our primary task is to ensure that the purpose of the legislature, the legislative intent, is accomplished." Electric Supply Co. of Durham v. Swain Elec. Co., 328...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Multiple Claimants v. Nc Dept. of Health
... 626 S.E.2d 666 ... MULTIPLE CLAIMANTS, Plaintiffs, ... NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Division of Facility ... Page 669 ... Hunt v. N.C. Dep't of Labor, 348 N.C. 192, 194, 499 S.E.2d 747, 748 (1998) ... Braswell, 330 N.C. 363, 410 S.E.2d 897 (1991), and Stone v. N.C. Dep't of Labor, 347 N.C. 473, 495 S.E.2d 711, cert. denied, 525 ... ...
-
City of Asheville v. State
... ... Wake County STATE of North Carolina, and County of Buncombe, et al., Defendants ... [r]egulating labor, trade, mining, or manufacturing." N.C. Const. art. II, § ... v. Stone, 322 N.C. 61, 64, 366 S.E.2d 697, 699 (1988)). "A single ... ...
-
Wallace v. Ohio Dept. of Commerce
... ... See Stone v. North Carolina Dept. of Labor (1998), 347 N.C. 473, 477-478, 495 ... ...
-
Ray v. N.C. Dep't of Transp.
... ... NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION. No. 28A12. Supreme ... N.C.G.S. 143291 (2011); see also Stone v. N.C. Dep't of Labor, 347 N.C. 473, 479, 495 S.E.2d 711, ... ...
-
Sovereign Immunity and the Uses of History
...v. State, 980 P.2d 1171 (Utah 1999). 507. E.g., Hunt v. N.C. Dep't of Labor, 499 S.E.2d 747 (N.C. 1998); Stone v. N.C. Dep't of Labor, 495 S.E.2d 711 (N.C. 1998), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1016 (1998). 508. See supra note 467 and accompanying text. 509. 28 U.S.C. ? § 1346(b) (2002). 510. 28 U.......
-
Why you should not judge a book by its cover: looking beyond party affiliations to discern patterns in judicial decisionmaking in the North Carolina Supreme Court: an analysis of voting trends in criminal and tort cases from 1995-2002.
...at 583 (Orr, J., dissenting). (239) Greene, 528 S.E.2d at 583 (Orr, J., dissenting). (240) See Stone v. North Carolina Dep't of Labor, 495 S.E.2d 711, 717 (N.C. 1998) (Orr, J., dissenting); Hunt v. North Carolina Dep't of Labor, 499 S.E.2d 747, 751 (N.C. 1998) (Orr, J., (241) Stone, 495 S.E......