Legal Opinion · Dissent

Holt v. N.C. Dep't of Transp.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided February 2, 2016No. 15-445Published

1DissentElmore, Judge

I respectfully disagree with the majority's conclusion that DOT's breach of duty was a proximate cause of the accident. Although the majority rejects DOT's challenge to certain findings of fact by summarily finding competent record evidence to support them, I agree with DOT that competent evidence is lacking.

I would reverse the Commission's decision for two reasons: (1) DOT's breach of duty was not an actual cause of plaintiffs' injuries; and (2) even if actual cause was established, I would find that the intentional criminal acts of Stasko and Atkinson could not have been reasonably foreseen…

2Cases cited25 opinions

  1. Sutton v. DukeSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1970
  2. Young v. Hickory Business FurnitureSupreme Court of North Carolina · 2000
  3. Hairston v. Alexander Tank & Equipment Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1984
  4. Butner v. SpeaseSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1940
  5. Butner v. . SpeaseSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1940

20 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