Watts v. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, 191A07.
| Decision Date | 10 October 2008 |
| Docket Number | No. 191A07.,191A07. |
| Parties | Kerry WATTS v. NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Appeal pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-30(2) from the decision of a divided panel of the Court of Appeals, 182 N.C.App. 178, 641 S.E.2d 811 (2007), affirming in part and reversing in part and remanding a decision and order entered by the North Carolina Industrial Commission on 3 October 2005. Heard in the Supreme Court 17 March 2008. Following oral argument, the Court on 27 March 2008 allowed plaintiff's petition for discretionary review of two additional issues. Determined on the supplemental briefs without further oral argument pursuant to N.C. R.App. P. 30(f)(1).
James, McElroy & Diehl, P.A., by John R. Buric and Preston O. Odom, III, Charlotte, for plaintiff-appellee/appellant.
Roy Cooper, Attorney General, by Dahr Joseph Tanoury, Assistant Attorney General, for defendant-appellant/appellee.
When the North Carolina Industrial Commission found as fact that the defendant Department of Environment and Natural Resources "admitted" it was "negligent in issuing Permit No. 99291" and when defendant failed to assign error to this finding, such finding of negligence is binding on appeal and precludes defendant's assertion of the public duty doctrine as a defense in the instant case. We therefore affirm the opinion of the Court of Appeals to the extent it holds that the Industrial Commission did not err in failing to apply the public duty doctrine.
The public duty doctrine is a rule grounded in common law negligence and provides that "when a governmental entity owes a duty to the general public, particularly a statutory duty, individual plaintiffs may not enforce the duty in tort." Myers v. McGrady, 360 N.C. 460, 465-66, 628 S.E.2d 761, 766 (2006). The doctrine operates to "limit tort liability, even when the State has waived sovereign immunity." Id. at 465, 628 S.E.2d at 766. Thus, when a plaintiff alleges negligence arising from the State's "failure to carry out a recognized public duty, and the State does not owe a corresponding special duty of care to the plaintiff individually, then the plaintiff has failed to state a claim in negligence." Id. at 463, 628 S.E.2d at 764. When, however, a plaintiff establishes that the State owes the plaintiff a "special duty" or that a "special relationship" exists between the plaintiff and the State, the plaintiff's claims are not barred by the public duty doctrine. Id. at 468, 628 S.E.2d at 767. Thus, unless one of these two exceptions to the public duty doctrine applies, an individual plaintiff fails to state a claim in negligence against the State.
Here, the Industrial Commission found that defendant admitted it was "negligent" in issuing the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cedarbrook Residential Ctr. v. N. Carolina Dep't of Health & Human Servs.
...regulatory authority against the regulated party," citing Watts v. N.C. Dep't of Env't &Nat. Res., 182 N.C.App. 178, 181-85) (2007), aff'd 362 N.C. 497 (2008); Nanny's Korner, 264 N.C.App. at 80; Crump, 216 N.C.App. at 46; Russell v. N.C. Dep't of Env't &Nat. Res., 227 N.C.App. 306, 309 (20......
-
Blaylock v. N.C. Dept. of Correction
...exception, and a plaintiff's claim will survive if he can establish the existence of either. Watts v. N.C. Dep't of Env't and Natural Res., 362 N.C. 497, 498, 666 S.E.2d 752, 753 (2008). The minor children-plaintiffs did not argue before the Full Commission or before this Court that the spe......
-
Beckles-Palomares v. Logan
...public, particularly a statutory duty, individual plaintiffs may not enforce the duty in tort.'" Watts v. N.C. Dep't of Env't & Natural Res., 362 N.C. 497, 498, 666 S.E.2d 752, 753 (2008) (quoting Myers v. McGrady, 360 N.C. 460, 465-66, 628 S.E.2d 761, 766 (2006)). Although the Court used t......
-
Fields v. Fields, COA14-1204
...Res., 182 N.C. App. 178, 185-86, 641 S.E.2d 811, 818 (2007) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted), aff'd in part as modified, 362 N.C. 497, 666 S.E.2d 752 (2008). As an initial matter, we address whether plaintiff presented sufficient evidence that the accident was a proximate ca......