Hairston v. N.C. Dept. of Correction
This text of Hairston v. N.C. Dept. of Correction (Hairston v. N.C. Dept. of Correction) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering North Carolina Industrial Commission primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
2. Plaintiff testified that on or about May 10, 2000, he left his cell at the Odom Correctional facility for breakfast, followed by a visit to sick call. Plaintiff testified that he pulled his door closed to lock it when he left. Plaintiff contends that the officer in charge of the control booth, Officer Owens, negligently opened his cell door while he was gone, resulting in loss of personal property, specifically a walkman and headset.
3. The evidence of record is insufficient to establish that the cell door was in fact secured when plaintiff left or that Officer Owens then opened it while plaintiff was gone. There is insufficient evidence to establish that actions by the correctional officer resulted in a loss of plaintiff's personal property.
2. Each side shall bear its own costs.
This the 14th day of October 2002.
S/____________ BUCK LATTIMORE CHAIRMAN
CONCURRING:
S/_____________ THOMAS J. BOLCH COMMISSIONER
S/______________________ LAURA KRANIFELD MAVRETIC COMMISSIONER
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Hairston v. N.C. Dept. of Correction, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hairston-v-nc-dept-of-correction-ncworkcompcom-2002.