Irving v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, 750 S.E.2d 1

Long, a Providence High School coach, was driving a Board of Education activity bus when it collided with Irving's vehicle.
Plaintiff sustained injuries and alleged negligence by Long.
Plaintiff filed a Tort Claims Act claim with the NC Industrial Commission on 29 Sept 2010.
The Commission granted summary judgment in Defendant's favor on 8 Aug 2012, ruling Long did not operate a covered vehicle under §143-300.1(a).
The issue on appeal is whether the activity bus qualifies as a public school bus or a school transportation service vehicle under the Tort Claims Act, making the Commission the proper forum.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Commission has jurisdiction under §143-300.1(a).	Long's activity bus is a school transportation service vehicle under Smith.	Activity buses fall outside §143-300.1(a) as not a traditional public school bus.	Yes; jurisdiction exists.
Whether an activity bus is a “school transportation service vehicle” under §143-300.1.	Smith defines activity buses as school transportation service vehicles.	Statutory definitions do not clearly include activity buses; narrow reading possible.	Activity bus is a school transportation service vehicle.
Whether Long operated the activity bus in accordance with §115C-242, making §143-300.1(a) applicable.	Defendant allowed activity buses for instructional programs and athletics under §115C-242.	§115C-242 is narrowly read to exclude activity buses from coverage.	Activity bus operated in accordance with §115C-242; §143-300.1(a) applies.

Smith v. McDowell Co. Bd. of Educ., 68 N.C. App. 541 (1984) (defines 'school transportation service vehicle' to include activity buses and maintenance vehicles)
In re Civil Penalty, 324 N.C. 373 (1989) (statutory interpretation guidance in applying Tort Claims Act)
Turner v. Board of Education, 250 N.C. 456 (1959) (historical treatment of state vs local board liability for school buses)