Bradshaw v. State Board of Education

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Bradshaw v. State Board of Education

93 S.E.2d 434, 244 N.C. 393, 1956 N.C. LEXIS 406

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedJune 26, 1956

Docket743

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 93 S.E.2d 434 (Bradshaw v. State Board of Education) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bradshaw v. State Board of Education, 93 S.E.2d 434, 244 N.C. 393, 1956 N.C. LEXIS 406 (N.C. 1956).

Pincite

Opinions

Winborne, J.

In considering points presented on this appeal, it is pertinent to note that G.S. 143-291 provides that the North Carolina Industrial Commission, constituted a court for the purpose of hearing and passing upon tort claims against the State Board of Education, and other agencies of the State, shall determine whether or not each individual claim arose as a result of a negligent act of a State employee while acting within the scope of his employment and without contributory negligence on the part of the claimant or the person in whose behalf the claim is asserted; and that if the Commission finds that there was such negligence on the part of a State employee acting within the scope of his employment which was the proximate cause of the injury and that there was no contributory negligence on the part of the claimant or the person in whose behalf the claim is asserted, the Commission shall determine the amount of damages which the claimant is entitled to be paid.

And pertaining to appeal from determination of a claim by the Commission, it is provided in G.S. 143-292 that such appeal shall be heard by the Industrial Commission, sitting as a Full Commission, on the basis of the record in the matter and upon oral argument of the parties, and said Commission may amend, set aside, or strike out the decision of the Hearing Commissioner and may issue its own findings of fact and conclusions of law.

And, in respect to appeal to the Superior Court by either the claimant, or the State, it is provided in G.S. 143-293 that the “appeal shall be for errors of law only under the same terms and conditions as govern appeals in ordinary civil actions, and the findings of fact of the Commission shall be conclusive if there is any competent evidence to support them.”

Applying these provisions of the statutes to the case in hand, the Industrial Commission has found as a fact and concluded as a' matter of law that there was no negligence on the part of the employee, bus driver, of the State, resulting in damages to the claimant within the [396]*396purview of G.S. 143-291 to 300, and the Superior Court being unable to find that there is no evidence to support the finding of the Commission, conclusion reached by it follows as a matter of course. Hence the judgment of Superior Court affirming the decision and order of the Industrial Commission was proper.

Let it be noted that the statute has been amended since the date of the occurrence on which the present claim arose.

Moreover error is not made to appear in other assignments.

And in view of decision reached, it is deemed unnecssary to consider the appeal by the State, or any point raised in connection therewith.

Affirmed.

Johnson, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Winborne, J.

In considering points presented on this appeal, it is pertinent to note that G.S. 143-291 provides that the North Carolina Industrial Commission, constituted a court for the purpose of hearing and passing upon tort claims against the State Board of Education, and other agencies of the State, shall determine whether or not each individual claim arose as a result of a negligent act of a State employee while acting within the scope of his employment and without contributory negligence on the part of the claimant or the person in whose behalf the claim is asserted; and that if the Commission finds that there was such negligence on the part of a State employee acting within the scope of his employment which was the proximate cause of the injury and that there was no contributory negligence on the part of the claimant or the person in whose behalf the claim is asserted, the Commission shall determine the amount of damages which the claimant is entitled to be paid.

And pertaining to appeal from determination of a claim by the Commission, it is provided in G.S. 143-292 that such appeal shall be heard by the Industrial Commission, sitting as a Full Commission, on the basis of the record in the matter and upon oral argument of the parties, and said Commission may amend, set aside, or strike out the decision of the Hearing Commissioner and may issue its own findings of fact and conclusions of law.

And, in respect to appeal to the Superior Court by either the claimant, or the State, it is provided in G.S. 143-293 that the “appeal shall be for errors of law only under the same terms and conditions as govern appeals in ordinary civil actions, and the findings of fact of the Commission shall be conclusive if there is any competent evidence to support them.”

Applying these provisions of the statutes to the case in hand, the Industrial Commission has found as a fact and concluded as a' matter of law that there was no negligence on the part of the employee, bus driver, of the State, resulting in damages to the claimant within the [396]*396purview of G.S. 143-291 to 300, and the Superior Court being unable to find that there is no evidence to support the finding of the Commission, conclusion reached by it follows as a matter of course. Hence the judgment of Superior Court affirming the decision and order of the Industrial Commission was proper.

Let it be noted that the statute has been amended since the date of the occurrence on which the present claim arose.

Moreover error is not made to appear in other assignments.

And in view of decision reached, it is deemed unnecssary to consider the appeal by the State, or any point raised in connection therewith.

Affirmed.

Johnson, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

93 S.E.2d 434, 244 N.C. 393, 1956 N.C. LEXIS 406, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bradshaw-v-state-board-of-education-nc-1956.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack