{
  "id": 11917241,
  "name": "CHARLES VANSON ALLEN, Employee v. NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Employer",
  "name_abbreviation": "Allen v. North Carolina Department of Transportation",
  "decision_date": "1995-11-07",
  "docket_number": "No. COA94-1023",
  "first_page": "627",
  "last_page": "630",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "120 N.C. App. 627"
    }
  ],
  "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 143-291",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.",
      "year": 1993,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "(a)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "446 S.E.2d 835",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 1994,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "836"
        },
        {
          "page": "837"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "116 N.C. App. 124",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8522604
      ],
      "year": 1994,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/116/0124-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 392,
    "char_count": 7041,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.753,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 3.6856254361847664e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8916981260297415
    },
    "sha256": "d2b80819f73a1d8ef974f03d3be77919e2993bb8e90696d03f93eddbc5ff51c4",
    "simhash": "1:9d2642297804322a",
    "word_count": 1086
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:17:04.771230+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges JOHN and WALKER concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "CHARLES VANSON ALLEN, Employee v. NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Employer"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "COZORT, Judge.\nThe question presented by this appeal is whether plaintiff\u2019s execution of a general release discharging his claims against a named individual and \u201call other persons\u201d bars plaintiffs claim of negligence against the North Carolina Department of Transportation. We hold the phrase \u201call other persons\u201d includes the Department of Transportation, and we affirm the Industrial Commission\u2019s opinion and award dismissing plaintiff\u2019s claim.\nOn 11 June 1992, plaintiff was travelling west on North Carolina Highway 27 in Mecklenburg County. John Massengill was travelling east on Highway 27 at the same time. As the two vehicles approached, Mr. Massengill\u2019s right tire dropped onto the shoulder, seven to nine inches below the roadway. Mr. Massengill lost control of his vehicle attempting to drive back on the roadway. He crossed the center line and collided head-on with plaintiff\u2019s vehicle. Plaintiff suffered serious injuries and incurred significant medical expenses. Plaintiff settled with Mr. Massengill for Massengill\u2019s policy limits of $25,000.00 and on 29 September 1992 executed a \u201cRelease of All-Claims.\u201d This release provided that the plaintiff\ndoes hereby . . . release, acquit and forever discharge John A. Massengill and ... all other persons, firms, corporations, associations or partnerships of and from any and all claims of action, demands, rights, damages, costs, loss of service, expenses and compensation whatsoever, which the undersigned now has/have or which may hereafter accrue on account of or in any way growing out of any and all known and unknown, foreseen and unforeseen bodily and personal injuries and property damage and the consequences thereof resulting or to result from the accident, casualty or event which occurred on or about the 11th day of June, 1992, at or near N.C. Hwy 27 West in Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina.\nOn 3 November 1992, plaintiff initiated this action, pursuant to the North Carolina Tort Claims Act, in the North Carolina Industrial Commission against the North Carolina Department of Transportation (DOT). Plaintiff alleged that Mecklenburg County DOT Maintenance Engineer Sidney Sandy was negligent in failing to maintain the shoulder of Highway 27 and in failing to correct or repair the dangerous condition that existed on the highway shoulder. On 9 December 1992, defendant filed an answer pleading the release as a bar to plaintiff\u2019s claim. Deputy Commissioner Morgan S. Chapman heard this matter on 11 August 1993, and filed a decision and order on 10 January 1994 ruling that the release barred plaintiffs claim. Plaintiff appealed to the Industrial Commission, which heard oral arguments on 28 June 1994, and filed a decision on 7 July 1994 affirming Deputy Commissioner Chapman. The Commission held:\nThe release signed by plaintiff discharged all claims of action arising from the accident on June 11, 1992 against John Massengill and all other persons, firms, corporations, associations, or partnerships. There was no exclusion for a claim against Mr. Sandy of the state. Mr. Sandy was certainly a \u201cperson\u201d within the meaning of the document. Plaintiff has claimed that the Department of Transportation was not a \u201cperson\u201d under the terms of the release. However, any liability of the Department of Transportation must arise [from] the negligence of a person employed by it, and the Tort Claims Act allows agencies of the state to be sued only under circumstances where \u201ca private person would be liable.\u201d Consequently, it appears that the state would be a person within the meaning of the release. Furthermore, the released [sic] purported to be a release of all claims, which would include any claim against defendant.\nPlaintiff appeals the decision of the Industrial Commission. Plaintiff contends the Commission erred by holding that the North Carolina Department of Transportation is a \u201cperson\u201d within the language of the release. We disagree.\nIn Spivey v. Lowery, 116 N.C. App. 124, 446 S.E.2d 835 (1994), we discussed the scope of a general release with operative language virtually identical to the language of the release at issue here. In Spivey, plaintiff Spivey executed a release discharging ali claims against the alleged tortfeasor Lowery, Lowery\u2019s insurance carrier Integon, and\nall other persons, firms, corporations, associations or partnerships of and from any and all claims of action, demands, rights, [and] damages . . . whatsoever, which the undersigned now has ... or which may hereafter accrue ... [as a result of] the accident . . . which occurred on or about the 17th day of October, 1989, at or near Laurinburg, N.C.\nId. at 125, 446 S.E.2d at 836.\nAfter executing the release, plaintiff Spivey filed suit against Lowery and The Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company, plaintiffs insurance carrier, seeking to recover under Hartford\u2019s underin-surance motorist coverage. The trial court granted summary judgment for Hartford. On appeal, we affirmed, stating:\n[B]ecause plaintiff signed a general release, plaintiff may not assert any claims arising out of the accident. Furthermore, notwithstanding the fact that plaintiff signed a general release, since plaintiff released the tortfeasor, Lowery, plaintiff may not assert a claim against Hartford because of the derivative nature of Hartford\u2019s liability.\nId. at 126, 446 S.E.2d at 837.\nWe find our reasoning in Spivey persuasive here. Plaintiff Allen\u2019s release was general, discharging all other persons and all claims, and providing for no exclusions from the release. The State\u2019s liability under the Tort Claims Act is derivative of the negligence of an officer, employee, involuntary servant or agent of the State, N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 143-291(a) (1993), and any such employee, such as DOT Maintenance Engineer Sandy, would be a \u201cperson\u201d as contemplated by the release executed by plaintiff. We find no reason to treat the State any differently than its employee would be treated under the release. We hold the Commission properly dismissed plaintiff\u2019s claim for the reason that plaintiff\u2019s execution of the general release released the State from any claim by plaintiff.\nAffirmed.\nJudges JOHN and WALKER concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "COZORT, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Devore and Acton, P.A., by William D. Acton, Jr., for plaintiff appellant.",
      "Attorney General Michael F. Easley, by Assistant Attorney General D. Sigsbee Miller and Special Deputy Attorney General E. H. Bunting, Jr., for defendant appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "CHARLES VANSON ALLEN, Employee v. NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Employer\nNo. COA94-1023\n(Filed 7 November 1995)\nTorts \u00a7 12 (NCI4th)\u2014 general release \u2014 claim against DOT barred\nPlaintiffs execution of a general release discharging his claims arising from an automobile accident against a named individual and \u201call other persons\u201d barred plaintiffs claim of negligence against the North Carolina Department of Transportation.\nAm Jnr 2d, Release \u00a7\u00a7 28 et seq.\nAppeal by plaintiff from opinion and award of the North Carolina Industrial Commission entered 7 July 1994. Heard in the Court of Appeals 26 May 1995.\nDevore and Acton, P.A., by William D. Acton, Jr., for plaintiff appellant.\nAttorney General Michael F. Easley, by Assistant Attorney General D. Sigsbee Miller and Special Deputy Attorney General E. H. Bunting, Jr., for defendant appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0627-01",
  "first_page_order": 661,
  "last_page_order": 664
}