Smith v. N.C. Dept. of Trans.

CourtNorth Carolina Industrial Commission
DecidedNovember 29, 2001
DocketI.C. NO. TA-15063
StatusPublished

This text of Smith v. N.C. Dept. of Trans. (Smith v. N.C. Dept. of Trans.) 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.

Bluebook
Smith v. N.C. Dept. of Trans., (N.C. Super. Ct. 2001).

Opinion

The Full Commission has reviewed the prior Opinion and Award based upon the record of the proceedings before Deputy Commissioner Pfeiffer and the briefs and oral arguments before the Full Commission. The appealing party has not shown good ground to reconsider the evidence, receive further evidence or to amend the Opinion and Award except with respect to the measure of damages. The Full Commission therefore affirms the Decision and Order of the Deputy Commissioner except with respect to damages. The parties made the following stipulations in a pretrial agreement dated October 13, 2000:

STIPULATIONS
1. The parties are properly before the North Carolina Industrial Commission under the North Carolina Tort Claims Act, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143-291, et seq.

2. On or about September 22, 1994 at approximately 7:16 a.m. a collision occurred between the vehicle being operated by the plaintiff in this action and a Norfolk Southern train at the Morrisville-Carpenter Road railroad crossing located in Morrisville, North Carolina.

3. The parties stipulated into the evidence in this matter exhibits one through three, which consist of damages invoices, accident reports, discovery responses and documents and requests for admissions, internal DOT documents, and photographs. In addition, plaintiff introduced and the Full Commission admitted into evidence in this matter what was marked as plaintiff's exhibit three, which consists of three pages setting forth additional tractor damages. Defendant introduced and the Full Commission admitted into evidence what was marked as defendant's exhibit one, the truck route ordinance and designations. The Full Commission also takes judicial notice of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 20-116.

4. The issues to be determined as a result of this hearing are whether defendant, North Carolina Department of Transportation (hereafter "DOT"), through its agents and employees, was negligent in causing the accident that resulted in plaintiff's damages through its alleged failure to properly maintain the safety of the railroad crossing, including erecting signage. Defendant has raised a further issue as to whether plaintiff acted with necessary and proper care when operating his tractor trailer, or did he negligently contribute to the accident causing his alleged damages.

***********
The Industrial Commission is not bound by the stipulation of the parties, however, and is free to make its own findings with respect to the stipulated damages.

***********
Based upon the greater weight of the competent and credible evidence of record in this matter and the reasonable inferences arising therefrom, the Full Commission makes the following:

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. In 1994, plaintiff, who lives in New York State, was an independent tractor-trailer operator. On occasion he was leased to Allied Van Lines to haul household goods for this company's customers. Plaintiff owned the tractor and the trailer that he used to haul under contract to Allied Van Lines, and he had been doing this sort of work for 30 years.

2. On September 22, 1994 plaintiff was under contract with Allied, transporting household goods in his trailer for a family that was moving from New Jersey to Cary, North Carolina. That morning plaintiff, using directions he had received from the customer whose goods he was transporting, exited Interstate 40 and proceeded south on Aviation Parkway. Aviation Parkway intersects with Highway 54, which runs east-to-west. Following the directions he had been given, plaintiff took a left onto Highway 54 from Aviation Parkway.

3. Only 276 feet after turning onto Highway 54, plaintiff took a right turn onto Morrisville-Carpenter Road to continue traveling southbound. A few feet after turning onto Morrisville-Carpenter Road, which is inclined, there is a railroad crossing. When plaintiff attempted to cross the railroad tracks, the underside of his trailer dragged and became lodged on the railroad tracks. Despite his efforts, plaintiff was unable to dislodge the trailer from the railroad tracks.

4. While plaintiff was attempting to dislodge his tractor-trailer, a train approached, and the railroad crossing arms came down between the tractor and the trailer. Plaintiff immediately exited the tractor and stood behind a utility pole and watched. The Norfolk Southern train proceeded to crash into plaintiff's tractor-trailer, doing extensive damage to the tractor, the trailer, and the contents of the trailer.

5. The Full Commission finds the reasonable damages to plaintiff's tractor were in the amount of $5,973.63. Reasonable damage to the trailer was $9,625.00.

6. The Full Commission finds the reasonable damages due to equipment lost in the accident and expenses incurred locating a substitute trailer and equipment came to a total value of $4,500.00.

7. The Full Commission finds the reasonable damages due to wrecker fees, site clean-up costs, and storage fees totaled $1,700.00.

8. The Full Commission finds the reasonable damages due to plaintiff's lost income as a result of inability to work for Allied or any other carrier from September 22, 1994 through November 18, 1994 was $21,000.00. The damages estimated by plaintiff were based on gross income rather than net income and the Full Commission based its damage award on net income.

9. Plaintiff did not suffer any personal injuries as a result of the accident on September 22, 1994.

10. Plaintiff, who had never been in North Carolina prior to this incident, had no driving directions to his destination other than the ones provided by the Allied customer.

11. On September 22, 1994, and in the months shortly thereafter when an investigation was done of the crash site on southbound Aviation Parkway there were no warning signs or even signs notifying drivers of an impending railroad crossing.

12. Motorists driving east on Highway 54 were given warning signs of an impending railroad crossing and a warning sign that indicates, "low vehicles may drag." These warning signs were given for both the Morrisville-Carpenter Road railroad crossing and also for a railroad crossing at Ashe Street.

13. Likewise, motorists driving west on Highway 54 were provided with railroad crossing and low drag warning signs for the Morrisville-Carpenter Road railroad crossing, but not for the Ashe Street crossing.

14. There were the same railroad crossing and low drag warning signs for motorists driving north on Morrisville-Carpenter Road prior to the railroad crossing.

15. There were no warning signs of any kind between the intersection at Aviation Parkway and the Morrisville-Carpenter Road railroad crossing; therefore, plaintiff could not have been warned that the grade crossing on the Morrisville-Carpenter Road railroad crossing was low and that his vehicle was in danger of dragging. There was no contributory negligence on the part of plaintiff.

16. Motorists waiting at the T-shaped intersection of Aviation Parkway and Highway 54 were not given notice of railroad crossings that are both to the left and the right of the intersection. Instead, straight ahead was a regulatory sign indicating that a truck route was to the right, or, west on Highway 54.

17. While the State strenuously argues that plaintiff was contributorily negligent by his failure to follow the truck route as indicated in the sign in the intersection of Aviation Parkway and Highway54, it is significant that plaintiff had no other directions to his destination and was not familiar with North Carolina or its roads.

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

Related

§ 143-291
North Carolina § 143-291
§ 143-299.1
North Carolina § 143-299.1
§ 20-116
North Carolina § 20-116

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Smith v. N.C. Dept. of Trans., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-nc-dept-of-trans-ncworkcompcom-2001.