In all claims listed in Section 13 of Chapter 1059 of the Session Laws of 1951, and all claims which may hereafter be filed against the various departments, institutions, and agencies of the State, the claimant or the person in whose behalf the claim is made shall file with the Industrial Commission an affidavit in duplicate, setting forth the following information:
(1) The name of the claimant;
(2) The name of the department, institution or agency of the State against which the claim is asserted, and the name of the State employee upon whose alleged negligence the claim is based;
(3) The amount of damages sought to be recovered;
(4) The time and place where the injury occurred;
(5) A brief statement of the facts and circumstances surrounding the injury and giving rise to the claim.
Upon receipt of such affidavit in duplicate, the Industrial Commission shall enter the case upon its hearing docket and shall hear and determine the matter in the county where the injury occurred unless the parties agree or the Industrial Commission directs that the case may be heard in some other county. All parties shall be given reasonable notice of the date when and the place where the claim will be heard.
Immediately upon docketing the case, the Industrial Commission shall forward one copy of plaintiff's affidavit to the office of the Attorney General of North Carolina if the claim is asserted against any department, institution, or agency of the State.
The department, institution or agency of the State against whom the claim is asserted shall file answer, demurrer or other pleading to the affidavit within 30 days after receipt of copy of same setting forth any defense it proposes to make in the hearing or trial, and no defense may be asserted in the hearing or trial unless it is alleged in such answer, except such defenses as are not required by the Code of Civil Procedure or other laws to be alleged. (1951, c. 1059, s. 9; 1963, c. 1063; 1971, c. 893, s. 2; c. 1103, s. 2.)
Notes of Decisions
Davis v. North Carolina Dep't of Human Resources, 465 S.E.2d 2 (N.C. Ct. App. 1995).
· cites it 18× “Plaintiff's affidavit, filed with the Commission pursuant to N.C.Gen.Stat. § 143-297, listed the "North Carolina Department of Human Resources, Division of Mental Health, Cherry Hospital, Thomas E.”
Turner Ex Rel. Turner v. Gastonia City Bd. of Educ., 109 S.E.2d 211 (N.C. 1959).
· cites it 18× “The first question presented is whether the City and State Boards of Education may challenge the claim by demurrer. The North Carolina Industrial Commission is constituted a court by G.”
Smith v. N.C. Dep't of Transp., 576 S.E.2d 345 (N.C. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 10× “under circumstances where the State of North Carolina, if a private person, would be liable to the claimant in accordance with the laws of North Carolina.”
Newgent v. Buncombe Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 442 S.E.2d 158 (N.C. Ct. App. 1994).
· cites it 22× “In the present case, in accordance with N.C.Gen.Stat. § 143-297, plaintiff filed an affidavit with the Commission that included a statement of facts and circumstances surrounding the injury giving rise to the claim.”
Frazier v. Murray, 519 S.E.2d 525 (N.C. Ct. App. 1999).
· cites it 4× “E.2d 530 (1968). In order to recover under the Tort Claims Act it is essential that plaintiff's affidavit identify the allegedly negligent employee and set forth the negligence relied upon, N.”
Cherney v. North Carolina Zoological Park, 603 S.E.2d 842 (N.C. Ct. App. 2004).
· cites it 6× “In Davis , this Court concluded that the plaintiff's affidavit "gave sufficient notice to defendant to allow it to narrow its investigation to those involved[,]" in that the affidavit "named the correct state agency, as required by section 143-297, the specific division of that…”
Nw. Distributors, Inc. v. N. C. Dep't of Transp., 255 S.E.2d 203 (N.C. Ct. App. 1979).
· cites it 2× “the negligence of defendant consisted solely of the failure to warn the plaintiff of the obstruction on the highway, that defendant’s driver Joe Bill Moxley had no duty to warn, and that plaintiff’s claim must fail because Moxley, rather than the employee who had the duty to…”
Floyd v. North Carolina State High. & Pub. Works Comm'n, 85 S.E.2d 703 (N.C. 1955).
· cites it 3× “G.S. § 143-297 provides that the claim must be accompanied by an affidavit in duplicate, setting forth among other things, (b) The name of the department, institution or agency of the State against which the claim is asserted and the name of the State employee upon whose alleged…”
Mason v. North Carolina State High. Comm'n, 173 S.E.2d 515 (N.C. Ct. App. 1970).
· cites it 6× “G.S. § 143-297 provides that in all claims brought under the Tort Claims Act *517 an affidavit must be filed in duplicate, setting forth among other things "[t]he name of the department, institution or agency of the State against which the claim is asserted, and the name of the…”
Thornton v. F.J. Cherry Hosp., 644 S.E.2d 369 (N.C. Ct. App. 2007).
· cites it 2× “N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143-297 (2005) provides that a claim must be accompanied by an affidavit in duplicate, setting forth among other things, the name of the Department, Institution, or Agency of the State of North Carolina against which the claim is asserted and the name of the…”
Martinez v. Wake Cty. Bd. of Educ., 813 S.E.2d 658 (N.C. Ct. App. 2018).
· cites it 2× “In accordance with N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143-297 , they filed in conjunction with their complaint affidavits naming various Board employees whose alleged negligent acts formed the basis for their claims against the Board.”
— N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143-297(2) — 5 cases
Davis v. North Carolina Dep't of Human Resources, 465 S.E.2d 2 (N.C. Ct. App. 1995).
“Plaintiff's affidavit, filed with the Commission pursuant to N.C.Gen.Stat. § 143-297, listed the "North Carolina Department of Human Resources, Division of Mental Health, Cherry Hospital, Thomas E.”
Nw. Distributors, Inc. v. N. C. Dep't of Transp., 255 S.E.2d 203 (N.C. Ct. App. 1979).
“the negligence of defendant consisted solely of the failure to warn the plaintiff of the obstruction on the highway, that defendant’s driver Joe Bill Moxley had no duty to warn, and that plaintiff’s claim must fail because Moxley, rather than the employee who had the duty to…”
Smith v. N.C. Dep't of Transp., 576 S.E.2d 345 (N.C. Ct. App. 2003).
“under circumstances where the State of North Carolina, if a private person, would be liable to the claimant in accordance with the laws of North Carolina.”
Cherney v. North Carolina Zoological Park, 603 S.E.2d 842 (N.C. Ct. App. 2004).
“In Davis , this Court concluded that the plaintiff's affidavit "gave sufficient notice to defendant to allow it to narrow its investigation to those involved[,]" in that the affidavit "named the correct state agency, as required by section 143-297, the specific division of that…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.