Legal Opinion

Woolard v. North Carolina Department of Transportation

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided March 21, 1989No. 8810IC694PublishedCited by 49 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

LEWIS, Judge.

Defendant brings forward five assignments of error grouped into three arguments. First, it contends the action is barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity. Second, the Department of Transportation contends the Industrial Commission erred in concluding defendant’s employee, Eason, was negligent or that Eason’s negligence was a proximate cause of Woolard’s injury. Finally, defendant contends the Industrial Commission erred in finding that the negligence of a third party, David Jefferson, did not bar recovery against defendant.

The facts stipulated to by the parties and found by…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Bolkhir v. North Carolina State UniversitySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1988
  2. Hairston v. Alexander Tank & Equipment Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1984
  3. Guthrie v. North Carolina State Ports AuthoritySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1983
  4. Zimmer v. North Carolina Department of TransportationCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1987
  5. Barney v. North Carolina State Highway CommissionSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1972

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by49 opinions

  1. Peagler v. Tyson Foods, Inc.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 2000
  2. London v. Snak Time Catering, Inc.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 2000
  3. Jordan Ex Rel. Winston v. Foust Oil Co.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1994
  4. Drewry v. North Carolina Department of TransportationCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2005
  5. Alt v. John Umstead HospitalCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1997

44 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API