Nо formal pleadings are required in a proceeding under our State Tort Claims Act. It is only necessary in order to invoke the jurisdiction of the Industrial Cоmmission for the claimant or person in whose behalf the claim is made to file with the Industrial Commission an affidavit in duplicate setting forth the material fаcts, as required 'by G.S. 143-297. This statute does not require the use of legal, technical or formal language, 'and the claimant is not held to the strict rules of pleadings applicable to common law actions. However, the claimant must have in his affidavit, among other things, “A brief statement of the facts and circumstances surrounding -the injury and giving rise to the claim.” This the plaintiff has done on behalf of its intestate.
The appellant assigns as error the ruling of the court below to the effect that the hearing commissioner and the full Commission were correct in dismissing the plaintiff’s claim upon the conclusion of law that the .plaintiff’s affidavit and the stipulations of the parties affirmatively show that the negligence of Geraldine Buzby insulated the negligence of the defendant’s bus driver.
Plaintiff contends that its affidavit and stipulations stated facts which affirmatively show that the negligence of the defendant’s bus driver was either the sole proximate cause or a joint and concurring proximate cause of the death of Robert Alkie Williams, and that it shоuld have been permitted to introduce evidence of its claim as set forth in its affidavit.
We are inclined to the view that this assignment of error is not withоut merit. It was stipulated that the Wilson County Board of Education had adopted certain rules and regulations governing the operation of its school buses; that .such rules and regulations were in effect at the time of this accident. However, we are not given the benefit of the requirements оf those rules. What do the rules require of a .bus driver in a situation .like that described in the affidavit? We are not advised. The .plaintiff was not permitted to introduce any evidence, not even the rules about which the parties stipulated. In our opinion, in -an informal proceeding like that providеd in our Tort Claims Act, the plaintiff is entitled to have its evidence heard, and the evidence, together with the informal pleadings, considered by the hеaring commissioner in making his findings of fact and conclusions of law.
The factual situation here is wholly unlike that which existed in
Turner v. Board of Education,
The second assignment of error is directed to the affirmance of the court below of the allowance by the hearing commissioner of the motion to dismiss the proceeding, which motion was based on the ground that the Tort Claims Act applies only tо claims arising solely from the negligence of a State employee or by an employee of a public agency covered by the Act.
Thе motion to dismiss the proceeding was based' on the legal conclusion that no public agency covered by the Tort Claims Act can be hеld liable for the negligent acts of its employee unless the negligence of such employee was the
sole
proximate cause of the claimant’s injuries and damages. In our opinion this is not a correct interpretation of the Tort Claims Act.
G.S. 14-3-291 provides: “The North Carolina Industrial Commission is hereby constituted! a court for the purpose of hearing and passing upon tort claims against the State Board of Education, the State Highwаy Commission, and all other departments, institutions and agencies of the State. The Industrial Commission shall determine whether or not each individual claim arose as a result of a negligent act of 'any officer, employee, involuntary servant or agent of the State while acting within the scoрe of his office, employment, service, agency or authority, under circumstances where the State■ of North Carolina, if a “private рerson, would be liable to the claimant in accordance with the laws of North Carolina. (Emphasis added.) If the Commission finds that there was such negligence on the part of an officer, employee, involuntary servant or agent of the State while acting within the scope of his officе, employment, service, agency or authority, which was the proximate cause of the injury andi that there was no contributory negligence on the part of -the claimant or the person in whose behalf the claim is asserted, the Commission shall determine the amount of damages which the claimant is entitled to be paid, including medical and other expenses * *
The legal limitation on the right to allow a claim under the provisions of G.S. 143-291 is limited to the same category with respect to tort claims against the agency covered as if .such agency were a private person and such private person would be liable under the laws of North Carolina.
It is not -necessary to cite authorities in support of the fаct that in a tort action the negligence of a private person need not be the sole proximate cause of the injury, but, in the absence of contributory negligence, such party is liable if his negligence was one of the proximate causes of such injury. In our opinion, it was not the intent of the Legislature to limit liability under the Tort Claims Act to situations where the negligence of an employee was the sole proximate cause of the injury or damages inflicted.
The defendant further cites in support of its position the ease of
Flynn v. Highway Commission,
We express no opinion on the merits of the plaintiff’s' claim or of the defendant’s defenses.
Remanded.