Title: Cherney v. N.C. Zoological Park

State: north-carolina

Issuer: North Carolina Supreme Court

Document:

Supreme Court
Slip Opinion
TINYA CHERNEY v. NORTH CAROLINA ZOOLOGICAL PARK
No. 606A04-3
FILED: 7 MARCH 2008
Tort Claims Act; Premises Liability–injury to zoo patron–premises liability standard
The decision of the Court of Appeals in this action under the Tort Claims Act for
injuries received by a state zoo patron when a ficus tree fell in a zoo exhibit is reversed for the
reasons stated in the dissenting opinion, and the case is remanded to the Court of Appeals for
further remand to the Industrial Commission for entry of a new decision and order in accordance
with the premises liability standard articulated in Nelson v. Freeland, 349 N.C. 615, and applied
in Martishius v. Carolco Studios, Inc., 355 N.C. 465.
Appeal pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-30(2) from the
decision of a divided panel of the Court of Appeals, 185 N.C.
App. ___, 648 S.E.2d 242 (2007), affirming a decision and order
entered by the North Carolina Industrial Commission on 28 April
2006.  Heard in the Supreme Court 12 February 2008.
Knott & Berger, L.L.P., by Joe Thomas Knott, III, Bruce
W. Berger, and Kenneth R. Murphy, III, for plaintiff-
appellant.
Roy Cooper, Attorney General, by William H. Borden,
Special Deputy Attorney General, for defendant-
appellee.
PER CURIAM.
For the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion, the
decision of the Court of Appeals affirming the Industrial
Commission’s decision and order is reversed.  This case is
remanded to the Court of Appeals for further remand to the
Industrial Commission for entry of a new decision and order in
accordance with the premises liability standard articulated in
Nelson v. Freeland, 349 N.C. 615, 507 S.E.2d 882 (1998) and
applied subsequently in Martishius v. Carolco Studios, Inc., 355
N.C. 465, 562 S.E.2d 887 (2002).  The Commission shall enter its
Supreme Court
Slip Opinion
-2-
new decision and order on the record as it exists without taking
additional evidence.  
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
Justices NEWBY and TIMMONS-GOODSON did not participate
in the consideration or decision of this case.