Irving v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education
368 N.C. 609
| N.C. | 2016Background
- In Oct. 2007 an activity bus owned/operated by Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, driven by an employee, struck plaintiff Irving’s car; she sued for negligence.
- Irving filed a claim with the N.C. Industrial Commission under the Tort Claims Act, invoking N.C.G.S. § 143-300.1 (waiver of governmental immunity for negligent operation of “public school bus or school transportation service vehicle”).
- The Industrial Commission granted summary judgment to the Board, holding it lacked jurisdiction because the vehicle was a school activity bus, not a “public school bus or school transportation service vehicle.”
- The Court of Appeals reversed; the Supreme Court granted discretionary review to resolve whether § 143-300.1 covers activity buses.
- Statutory and regulatory scheme: ‘‘school bus,’’ ‘‘school activity bus,’’ and ‘‘school transportation service vehicle’’ are defined and treated as distinct categories (see N.C. Gen. Stat. ch. 115C and State Board rules).
- The Court concluded activity buses are excluded from § 143-300.1 and that the Commission therefore lacks jurisdiction; summary judgment for the Board was affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 143‑300.1’s waiver of governmental immunity covers negligent operation of a school activity bus | Irving: activity buses fall within “public school bus or school transportation service vehicle” in § 143‑300.1, so Commission has jurisdiction | Board: § 143‑300.1 covers only public school buses and school transportation service vehicles, not activity buses | Held: Activity buses are a separate category and are excluded from § 143‑300.1; Commission lacks jurisdiction |
| Whether ‘‘in accordance with G.S. 115C‑242’’ limits § 143‑300.1’s waiver to statutorily authorized uses of school buses | Irving: implied broader coverage includes activity buses | Board: the ‘‘in accordance with’’ language restricts the waiver to uses defined in § 115C‑242 (regular curricular transport) | Held: The added phrase constrains the waiver to vehicles/uses authorized by § 115C‑242; activity buses (extracurricular use) are governed separately |
Key Cases Cited
- White v. Trew, 366 N.C. 360, 736 S.E.2d 166 (standard of de novo review for immunity questions)
- Craig v. New Hanover Cty. Bd. of Educ., 363 N.C. 334, 678 S.E.2d 351 (distinguishing governmental vs. sovereign immunity and review standard)
- Orange County v. Heath, 282 N.C. 292, 192 S.E.2d 308 (waiver of governmental immunity requires a plain, unmistakable mandate)
- Guthrie v. N.C. State Ports Auth., 307 N.C. 522, 299 S.E.2d 618 (statutes waiving immunity must be strictly construed)
- Smith Chapel Baptist Church v. City of Durham, 350 N.C. 805, 517 S.E.2d 874 (clear statutory language should be given its plain meaning)