Scurlock v. N.C. Department of Correction
This text of Scurlock v. N.C. Department of Correction (Scurlock v. N.C. Department 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. Under NCDOC policy, unauthorized personal property is either destroyed or mailed to a designated addressee at the inmate's expense.
3. Plaintiff's items deemed unauthorized personal property were listed on Defendant's Exhibit 1, the personal property inventory form DC-160 dated May 7, 2008. Plaintiff and the inventorying officers, acknowledging the accuracy and completeness of the inventory, signed this form. Plaintiff requested that these items be mailed to a certain address.
4. Defendant's Exhibit 1 shows that the items were to be mailed on May 7, 2008 to the addressee designated by Plaintiff.
5. Plaintiff testified that the items that he requested to be mailed never reached the desired address. Plaintiff further testified that the items that he requested to be mailed never reached the NCDOC mail room.
6. The Full Commission finds that Plaintiff has proven, by a preponderance of the evidence, Plaintiff's possessions were negligently handled by agents or employees of Defendant and that Plaintiff suffered a loss as a result. Accordingly, Plaintiff is entitled to be reimbursed for his loss. The Full Commission finds that an amount of $70.00 is reasonable to reimburse Plaintiff.
2. Pursuant to the provisions of the Tort Claims Act, negligence is determined by the same rules applicable to private parties.Bolkhir v. N.C. State University,
3. In order to prevail in a tort claim filed pursuant to the Act, a plaintiff bears the burden of proving, as at common law: (1) that an officer, employee, involuntary servant or agent of the party-defendant owed the plaintiff a cognizable duty and (2) breached this duty, (3) proximately causing (4) injury to the plaintiff. Bolkhir v. N.C. State Univ.,
4. Plaintiff has shown by the greater weight of the evidence that Defendant was negligent in handling the personal property taken from Plaintiff and to be mailed on May 7, 2008. Defendant has failed to offer any evidence in contradiction to Plaintiff's allegations.
5. Plaintiff is entitled to reimbursement for the missing items.
2. No costs are taxed as Plaintiff was permitted to file this civil action in forma pauperis.
This the __ day of March 2011.
S/___________________ PAMELA T. YOUNG CHAIR
CONCURRING:
*Page 1S/___________________ STACI T. MEYER COMMISSIONER
S/___________________ LINDA CHEATHAM COMMISSIONER
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Scurlock v. N.C. Department of Correction, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/scurlock-v-nc-department-of-correction-ncworkcompcom-2011.