Court Opinion

ID: 9854401
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 06:07:06.751908+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:23:04.062788
License: Public Domain

Judge ARNOLD
concurring in the result.
In regard to defendant Cooper, while I agree that we are bound by the result of the Court’s prior panel on the question of this defendant’s liability, I strongly question the reasoning of that prior decision. Its anomalous rationale appears to allow a *659claim against an employee in an individual capacity while conferring immunity from liability in a governmental capacity. Defendant’s actions were clearly within this scope.
In addition to the above, parents “have the duty to take every step reasonably possible under the circumstances ... to prevent harm to their children.” Coleman v. Cooper, 89 N.C. App. 188, 198-99, 366 S.E.2d 2, 9, disc. review denied, 322 N.C. 834, 371 S.E.2d 275 (1988) (citing State v. Walden, 306 N.C. 466, 475, 293 S.E.2d 780, 786 (1982)). Failure to perform this duty is negligence. From the forecast of evidence before us plaintiff was contributorily negligent as a matter of law.