{ "id": 8527745, "name": "RICHARD M. LAUGHINGHOUSE, Appellant v. STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, ex rel. NORTH CAROLINA PORTS RAILWAY COMMISSION, Appellee", "name_abbreviation": "Laughinghouse v. State ex rel. North Carolina Ports Railway Commission", "decision_date": "1991-01-15", "docket_number": "No. 9010IC445", "first_page": "375", "last_page": "378", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "101 N.C. App. 375" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.", "id": 14983, "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 5, "name_long": "North Carolina", "name": "N.C." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 143-297", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.", "year": 1990, "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 143-291", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.", "year": 1990, "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "34 L.Ed.2d 245", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "year": 1972, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "409 U.S. 982", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6420641, 6421060, 6420840, 6420202, 6420751, 6420305, 6420949, 6420536, 6421209, 6420409 ], "year": 1972, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/409/0982-05", "/us/409/0982-09", "/us/409/0982-07", "/us/409/0982-01", "/us/409/0982-06", "/us/409/0982-02", "/us/409/0982-08", "/us/409/0982-04", "/us/409/0982-10", "/us/409/0982-03" ] }, { "cite": "463 F.2d 1", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.2d", "case_ids": [ 1344066 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "4" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f2d/463/0001-01" ] }, { "cite": "483 U.S. 468", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 28093 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1987, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/483/0468-01" ] }, { "cite": "377 U.S. 184", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6166693 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1964, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/377/0316-01" ] }, { "cite": "241 U.S. 290", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 8287219 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1916, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/241/0290-01" ] }, { "cite": "86 S.E. 964", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "year": 1915, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "967" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "170 N.C. 176", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "year": 1915, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "183" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "97 L.Ed. 403", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed.", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "404" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "244 U.S. 147", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 343239 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1917, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/244/0147-01" ] }, { "cite": "45 U.S.C.A. \u00a7 51", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "U.S.C.", "weight": 2, "year": 1986, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "261 S.E.2d 123", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1979, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "298 N.C. 567", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8573187, 8573126, 8573206, 8573111, 8573148 ], "year": 1979, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/298/0567-04", "/nc/298/0567-02", "/nc/298/0567-05", "/nc/298/0567-01", "/nc/298/0567-03" ] }, { "cite": "255 S.E.2d 203", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1979, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "205" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "41 N.C. App. 548", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8550505 ], "year": 1979, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "550" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/41/0548-01" ] }, { "cite": "381 S.E.2d 792", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1989, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "325 N.C. 230", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2492933, 2490126, 2490832, 2488406, 2492061 ], "year": 1989, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/325/0230-01", "/nc/325/0230-04", "/nc/325/0230-03", "/nc/325/0230-05", "/nc/325/0230-02" ] }, { "cite": "377 S.E.2d 267", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1989, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "93 N.C. App. 214", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8527961 ], "year": 1989, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/93/0214-01" ] }, { "cite": "85 S.E.2d 703", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1955, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "241 N.C. 461", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8612253 ], "year": 1955, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/241/0461-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 503, "char_count": 8201, "ocr_confidence": 0.774, "pagerank": { "raw": 2.521991431408286e-07, "percentile": 0.8115863125610798 }, "sha256": "9314f743ed38b0449554a75f411b31d6601d4484520352b5efd279f29bf1e50c", "simhash": "1:412eae8174b8d585", "word_count": 1320 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:54:53.681770+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges PARKER and Orr concur." ], "parties": [ "RICHARD M. LAUGHINGHOUSE, Appellant v. STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, ex rel. NORTH CAROLINA PORTS RAILWAY COMMISSION, Appellee" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "ARNOLD, Judge.\nPlaintiff brings forth two assignments of error, and defendant, one. First we examine defendant\u2019s claim that the Industrial Commission erred by failing to dismiss plaintiff\u2019s claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.\nPlaintiff was injured on 31 January 1985, while throwing a \u201cpit switch,\u201d a device set in the ground that when operated switches railway traffic from one track to another. This particular switch had been improperly maintained and had become defective. Maintenance personnel had been notified that the switch needed repairing, but no action had been taken.\nThrowing a pit switch involves a manual maneuver using one\u2019s arms and body weight. When plaintiff attempted to throw the switch on this particular occasion, the switch stuck. Plaintiff exerted himself in an effort to throw the switch and severely injured his knee. As a result of the injury, plaintiff is partially, permanently disabled and can no longer perform the duties necessary to work as a railway employee. Plaintiff was forty-seven years old at the time of his injury.\nThe Industrial Commission concluded the State was guilty of negligence in failing to maintain the switch, but refused to enter judgment on the technical grounds that the plaintiff failed to identify in the Affidavit the negligent State employee and agency. See G.S. \u00a7 143-297; Floyd v. N.C. State Highway and Pub. Works Commission, 241 N.C. 461, 85 S.E.2d 703 (1955); Woolard v. N.C. Dept. of Transp., 93 N.C. App. 214, 377 S.E.2d 267, cert. denied, 325 N.C. 230, 381 S.E.2d 792 (1989). The Industrial Commission concluded that the negligent employees were employees of the State Ports Authority, rather than the Ports Authority Railway Commission. The claim was dismissed because the Affidavit named the latter instead of the former.\nWe agree with the Industrial Commission that an often unfair and harsh rule has evolved in our case law whereby a plaintiffs pleadings may be fatal to his claim if he fails to properly identify the negligent State employee and agency in the Affidavit used to initiate an action with the Industrial Commission. We have previously voiced our criticism of this rule. See Northwestern Distributors, Inc. v. N.C. Dept. of Transp., 41 N.C. App. 548, 550, 255 S.E.2d 203, 205, cert. denied, 298 N.C. 567, 261 S.E.2d 123 (1979). Nevertheless, like the Commission, we are not the proper body to initiate such a change; it is for our General Assembly or Supreme Court.\nFurthermore, this case is not the appropriate vehicle to institute this change. In our view, the Industrial Commission erred in failing to dismiss plaintiff\u2019s claim because it lacked subject matter jurisdiction. Early in this century, Congress enacted the Federal Employers\u2019 Liability Act (FELA) to provide a national law covering injuries sustained by railway employees that were the result of the negligence of their employers. See 45 U.S.C.A. \u00a7 51 (1986). It is clear that the FELA was created to provide a national law that would preempt varying state laws covering injuries to railway employees engaged in interstate commerce. New York Cent. Ry. Co. v. Winfield, 244 U.S. 147, 61 L.Ed. 1045 (1917). \u201cIn rulings dating from the enactment of the federal statute, it has invariably been stated that the FELA superseded state law insofar as the two cover the same field.\u201d Annotation, 97 L.Ed. 403, 404. Our state Supreme Court has recognized that where the FELA and state law overlap, the state law remedies are preempted, \u201cbecause the Federal statute is exclusive and supersedes the right of action under the State law.\u201d Renn v. Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co., 170 N.C. 176, 183, 86 S.E. 964, 967 (1915), aff'd, 241 U.S. 290, 60 L.Ed. 1006 (1916).\nThe FELA applies when an injury occurs to \u201c[a]ny employee of a carrier, any part of whose duties as such employee shall be the furtherance of interstate or foreign commerce; or shall, in any way directly or closely and substantially, affect such commerce as above set forth . 45 U.S.C.A. \u00a7 51. Several cases have found that state port railroad operations, such as the one involved in this case, are interstate in nature. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that the state authority operating railroads at the Alabama state docks was an interstate carrier. Parden v. Terminal Ry. of the Alabama State Docks Dept., 377 U.S. 184, 12 L.Ed.2d 233 (1964), rev\u2019d on other grounds, Welch v. Texas Dept. of Highways and Public Transp., 483 U.S. 468, 97 L.Ed.2d 389 (1987). The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals has found the railway operations of our State ports were \u201ca link in interstate and foreign carriage of shipments controlled by ship and railway companies.\u201d International Longshoremen\u2019s Ass\u2019n., AFL-CIO v. N.C. Ports Auth., 463 F.2d 1, 4 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 982, 34 L.Ed.2d 245 (1972).\nFurthermore, the evidence before the Commission supports a finding that plaintiff was involved in interstate commerce when he was injured on 31 January 1985. The testimony indicates that at the time of the injury plaintiff was engaged in transporting lumber from the Soviet Union. Based on this case law and evidence, we hold that the Industrial Commission erred in failing to dismiss this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.\nThis result makes it unnecessary for us to examine plaintiff\u2019s assignments of error. For the foregoing reasons, the judgment dismissing plaintiff\u2019s claim is\nAffirmed.\nJudges PARKER and Orr concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "ARNOLD, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "DeBank, McDaniel, Holbrook & Anderson, by William E. Anderson, for plaintiff appellant.", "Johnson & Lambeth, by Robert White Johnson and Maynard M. Brown, for defendant appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "RICHARD M. LAUGHINGHOUSE, Appellant v. STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, ex rel. NORTH CAROLINA PORTS RAILWAY COMMISSION, Appellee\nNo. 9010IC445\n(Filed 15 January 1991)\n1. State \u00a7 7.1 (NCI3d)\u2014 tort claim \u2014 failure to name proper State employees and agency\nA claim under the Tort Claims Act was properly dismissed on the ground that plaintiff failed properly to identify the negligent State employees and agency in the affidavit initiating the action in the Industrial Commission where plaintiff alleged negligence by employees of the Ports Authority Railway Commission but the Industrial Commission found that the negligent employees were employees of the State Ports Authority.\nAm Jur 2d, Municipal, County, School, and State Tort Liability \u00a7 662.\n2. Master and Servant \u00a7 36 (NCI3d) \u2014 injury to state port railway worker \u2014 jurisdiction under F.E.L.A.\nThe Industrial Commission did not have subject matter jurisdiction under the Tort Claims Act of a claim instituted by an injured railroad worker employed by the State Ports Authority since the Federal Employers\u2019 Liability Act preempts State laws covering injuries to railway employees engaged in interstate commerce; State port railroad operations are interstate in nature; and plaintiff was involved in interstate commerce at the time of his injury in that he was engaged in transporting lumber from the Soviet Union.\nAm Jur 2d, Federal Employers\u2019 Liability and Compensation Acts \u00a7 4.\nAppeal by plaintiff from a judgment entered 18 July 1989 by the North Carolina Industrial Commission. Heard in the Court of Appeals 5 December 1990.\nThis action for personal injuries arose out of an on-the-job injury to a railroad worker employed by the State of North Carolina at the Ports Authority in Morehead City. The action was commenced by filing an Affidavit under the Tort Claims Act, N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 143-291 (1990), with the Industrial Commission. The matter was heard by former Chairman Ernest C. Pearson, sitting as hearing officer, on 8 August 1988. The Decision and Order by Chairman Pearson concluded that the Industrial Commission had jurisdiction, but that the employee and specific agency named in the Affidavit were not negligent. See N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 143-297 (1990). Appeal was taken to the Full Commission.\nA Decision and Order from the Full Commission was filed 4 January 1990, affirming the dismissal based on plaintiffs failure to allege the state agency and the employee who was responsible for the alleged negligence, but the Commission noted \u201cgrave misgivings about this interpretation of the law . . . .\u201d Plaintiff appealed.\nDeBank, McDaniel, Holbrook & Anderson, by William E. Anderson, for plaintiff appellant.\nJohnson & Lambeth, by Robert White Johnson and Maynard M. Brown, for defendant appellee." }, "file_name": "0375-01", "first_page_order": 403, "last_page_order": 406 }