Court Opinion

ID: 9609472
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 03:27:23.218351+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:02:50.745233
License: Public Domain

WELLS, Judge.
Plaintiff assigns as error the Industrial Commission’s finding and concluding that it lacked jurisdiction over this action and the dismissal of his claim. After examining the record before us, we must conclude that this assignment is without merit.
This action is governed by G.S. § 143-300.1, which provides in pertinent part:
The North Carolina Industrial Commission shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine tort claims against any county board of education . . . which claims arise as a result of any alleged mechanical defects or other defects which may affect the safe operation of a public school bus . . . resulting from an alleged negligent act of any maintenance personnel or as a result of any alleged negligent act or omission of the driver of a public school bus . . . and which driver was at the time of the alleged negligent act or omission operating a public school bus ... in the course of his employment by or training for that administrative unit or board. (Emphasis added.)
The Commission found and concluded that the school bus driver “was not operating a public school bus in the course of her em*409ployment” at the time of the alleged negligent acts complained of; therefore, the Commission lacked jurisdiction under the statute.
Since the applicable statute is in derogation of sovereign immunity, it must be strictly construed and its terms strictly adhered to. Etheridge v. Graham, 14 N.C. App. 551, 188 S.E.2d 551 (1972). We can discern no way that defendant’s employee could be considered to have been operating the bus at the time of the negligent acts complained of — not reporting to the principal that the stop had limited visibility and that she could stop the bus and pick up students on the west side of the highway, and not informing the principal or Joseph’s parents that Joseph had previously crossed the highway by himself. In order to be held liable under this statute, the negligent acts or omissions complained of must have occurred while the employee was operating the bus in the course of her employment.
There is competent evidence to support the Commission’s finding that the bus driver was not operating the vehicle in the course of her employment at the time of the alleged negligent acts; therefore, the findings are conclusive on appeal. See G.S. § 143-293; Mitchell v. Board of Education, 1 N.C. App. 373, 161 S.E.2d 645 (1968). For the reasons stated above, the order concluding that the Commission lacked jurisdiction over the claim is hereby
Affirmed.
Judge ORR dissents in a separate opinion.
Judge WYNN concurs.