An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute 

controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance 

with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure.

NO. COA13-749

NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS

Filed: 21 January 2014

VIOLA SIMMONS,

Plaintiff,

North Carolina

v. Industrial Commission

I.C. No. TA-22342

FAYETTEVILLE STATE UNIVERSITY,

Defendant.

Appeal by plaintiff from decision and order entered 18

March 2013 by the North Carolina Industrial Commission. Heard 

in the Court of Appeals 30 December 2013.

Viola Simmons, pro se, for plaintiff-appellant.

Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General 

Alesia Balshakova, for defendant-appellee.

HUNTER, JR., Robert N., Judge.

Plaintiff appeals from a decision and order of the North 

Carolina Industrial Commission denying her claim for damages 

under the North Carolina Tort Claims Act. Because plaintiff has 

failed to present a cognizable, properly supported argument to 

this Court as required by N.C. R. App. P. 28(b)(6), we dismiss

her appeal.
-2-

On 20 April 2011, plaintiff filed a negligence claim 

against defendant under the Tort Claims Act after she slipped 

and fell on campus on the morning of 12 January 2011. Defendant

had cancelled classes the preceding day in response to a winter 

storm that brought ice, snow, and freezing rain. While walking 

to her 10:00 a.m. class on 12 January 2011, plaintiff noticed 

that the sidewalk had been treated for ice. Because the broken 

ice had not been removed from the sidewalk, plaintiff “carefully 

avoided the broken ice.” On the sidewalk between the New 

Residence Dormitory and the nursing building, however, plaintiff

encountered what she described as a patch of “clear ice, 

something like they call black ice, like you can’t tell it’s 

there.” Plaintiff lost her footing on the ice and fell 

backward, striking her head on the ground. She was taken by 

ambulance to a hospital and was diagnosed with strains to her 

neck and lower back. Plaintiff missed three days of school 

following the incident.

Alan Ray Williams, defendant’s Director of Operations, was 

responsible for clearing ice from the sidewalks of the 186-acre 

campus. His staff of fifteen to seventeen employees treated the 

sidewalks with a brine solution ahead of the storm on 11 January

2011 and physically cleared them of ice and snow thereafter. 
-3-

Although his staff had resumed clearing the sidewalks at 5:00 

a.m. on 12 January 2011—beginning with the location where 

plaintiff fell—Williams testified that they could never be sure 

to get all the icy spots off the sidewalks given the size of the 

campus and the number of sidewalks thereon. He noted that “this 

event was a freezing event and anything that was melted the 

previous day if it puddled it refroze over night [sic].”

After a hearing on 8 May 2012, a deputy commissioner filed 

a decision and order awarding plaintiff $14,500 in damages. 

Defendant appealed to the Full Commission, which reversed the 

deputy commissioner’s award and denied plaintiff’s negligence 

claim. Citing Von Viczay v. Thoms, 140 N.C. App. 737, 739, 538 

S.E.2d 629, 631 (2000), aff’d per curiam, 353 N.C. 445, 545 

S.E.2d 210 (2001), the Commission concluded that defendant had 

no duty to warn plaintiff of the obvious danger presented by 

snow and ice on its walkways, absent evidence that its employees 

had superior knowledge as to a particular hazard. Thus, because

plaintiff “failed to present any evidence showing that any 

employee of Defendant had knowledge of the ‘black ice’ on the 

sidewalk prior to her fall[,]” the Commission concluded that 

plaintiff had failed to show that defendant or its employees had 
-4-

breached any duty of care owed to her. See id. at 740, 538 

S.E.2d at 632.

In her brief to this Court, plaintiff asks that we overturn 

the Full Commission’s decision and reinstate the deputy 

commissioner’s damages award. She insists she had no way to 

know the conditions on defendant’s campus until she arrived for 

class on 12 January 2011, and that her fall was the result of 

negligence by Mr. Williams in treating the sidewalks. 

The purpose of appellate briefs “is to define clearly the 

issues presented to the reviewing court and to present the 

arguments and authorities upon which the parties rely in support 

of their respective positions thereon.” N.C. R. App. 28(a). 

Our appellate rules provide that an appellant’s brief must

include, inter alia, “[a] statement of the issues presented for 

review” and “[a]n argument, to contain the contentions of the 

appellant with respect to each issue presented.” N.C. R. App. 

P. 28(b)(2), (6). Moreover, an appellant’s argument must 

“contain a concise statement of the applicable standard(s) of 

review for each issue” and “[t]he body of the argument and the 

statement of applicable standard(s) of review shall contain 

citations of the authorities upon which the appellant relies.” 

N.C. R. App. P. 28(b)(6). “Issues not presented in a party’s 
-5-

brief, or in support of which no reason or argument is stated, 

will be taken as abandoned.” N.C. R. App. P. 28(b)(2). We have

“emphasize[d] that even pro se appellants must adhere strictly 

to the Rules of Appellate Procedure . . . or risk sanctions.”

Strauss v. Hunt, 140 N.C. App. 345, 348–49, 536 S.E.2d 636, 639 

(2000) (citing N.C. R. App. P. 25(b)).

Plaintiff’s brief fails to identify any issue for appellate

review. It offers no argument, sets forth no standard of 

review, and cites to no authority.1 It is not the role of this 

Court to construct a viable legal argument for plaintiff. See 

Foster v. Crandell, 181 N.C. App. 152, 173, 638 S.E.2d 526, 540 

(2007) (“It is not the responsibility of this Court to construct 

arguments for a party”); Goodson v. P.H. Glatfelter Co., 171 

N.C. App. 596, 606, 615 S.E.2d 350, 358 (2005) (“It is not the 

duty of this Court to supplement an appellant’s brief with legal 

authority or arguments not contained therein.”). Because 

plaintiff’s gross substantive violation of N.C. R. App. P. 28(b) 

“impairs [this C]ourt’s task of review” such that “review on the

merits would frustrate the adversarial process,” we conclude 

 

1 We further note that plaintiff’s brief lacks “[a] concise 

statement of the procedural history of the case[,]” lacks “[a] 

statement of the grounds for appellate review” with “citation of 

the statute or statutes permitting appellate review[,]” and 

lacks “[a] full and complete statement of facts.” N.C. R. App. 

P. 28(b)(3)–(5).
-6-

that her appeal should be dismissed pursuant to N.C. R. App. P. 

34(b). Dogwood Dev. & Mgmt. Co. v. White Oak Transp. Co., 362 

N.C. 191, 200, 657 S.E.2d 361, 366–67 (2008). We further find 

no grounds to suspend our appellate rules pursuant to N.C. R. 

App. P. 2 to review the Full Commission’s ruling. See id. at 

201, 657 S.E.2d at 367.

Appeal dismissed.

Chief Judge MARTIN and Judge DILLON concur.

Report per Rule 30(e).