Holt v. N.C. Dep't of Transp.
Court of Appeals of North Carolina
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
- Sutton v. DukeSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1970
- Young v. Hickory Business FurnitureSupreme Court of North Carolina · 2000
- Hairston v. Alexander Tank & Equipment Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1984
- Butner v. SpeaseSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1940
- Butner v. . SpeaseSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1940
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.