Collins v. North Carolina Parole Commission
Cases that cite this one
41 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.
- White v. Trew, 366 NC 360 (N.C. 2013)
- Thompson v. N.C. Department of Correction (North Carolina Industrial Commission 2010)
- Sartori v. N.C. Department of Correction (North Carolina Industrial Commission 2010)
- Jones v. N.C. Department of Correction (North Carolina Industrial Commission 2010)
- Pulley v. N.C. Department of Correction (North Carolina Industrial Commission 2010)
- Henderson v. N.C. Department of Correction (North Carolina Industrial Commission 2010)
- Sartori v. N.C. Department of Correction (North Carolina Industrial Commission 2010)
- Crisp v. N.C. Dept. of Correction (North Carolina Industrial Commission 2010)
- Williams v. Holsclaw (N.C. Ct. App. 1998)
- David Evans v. Patrick Baker (4th Cir. 2012)
- Cole v. the City of Greensboro (North Carolina Industrial Commission 2009)
- Patrick v. NORTH CAROLINA DHHS (N.C. Ct. App. 2008)
- Autry v. N.C. Department of Correction (North Carolina Industrial Commission 2008)
- Patrick v. North Carolina Department of Health & Human Services (N.C. Ct. App. 2008)
- Murdock v. City of Greensboro (N.C. Ct. App. 2025)
- Williams v. N.C. Department of Correction (North Carolina Industrial Commission 2011)
- Williams v. N.C. Department of Correction (North Carolina Industrial Commission 2010)
- Howell v. N.C. Department of Correction (North Carolina Industrial Commission 2010)
- Bullock v. N.C. Department of Correction (North Carolina Industrial Commission 2010)
- Blanton v. N.C. Dept. of Correction (North Carolina Industrial Commission 2010)
- Husketh v. Moore County Clerk of Superior Court (North Carolina Industrial Commission 2009)
- Rivers v. N.C. Department of Correction (North Carolina Industrial Commission 2009)
- Autry v. N.C. Dept. of Correction (North Carolina Industrial Commission 2008)
- Jones v. N.C. Dept. of Correction (North Carolina Industrial Commission 2008)
- Wall v. N.C. Dept of Corr. (North Carolina Industrial Commission 2007)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the Industrial Commission on the ground that under the State Tort Claims Act, N.C.G.S. § 143-291 (1993), sovereign immunity is waived only for negligent acts. The plaintiff alleged in this case that the acts of the members and employees of the Parole Commission were wanton, reckless, malicious, and grossly negligent. The Court of Appeals held that the Tort Claims Act waived the State’s sovereign immunity only for ordinary negligence, and the plaintiff has alleged more than ordinary negligence. The Court of Appeals said this deprived the Industrial Commission of jurisdiction.
We disagree with the reasoning of the Court of Appeals. In Jenkins v. N.C. Dep’t of Motor Vehicles, 244 N.C. 560, 94 S.E.2d 577 (1956), we held that the Tort Claims Act does not give the Industrial Commission jurisdiction to award damages based on intentional acts. We said that to give the Industrial Commission jurisdiction of a tort claim, the claim must be based on negligence. We have held that there are degrees of negligence and that willful, wanton, and reckless conduct does not rise to the level of intent for an injury to occur. Woodson v. Rowland, 329 N.C. 330, 341, 407 S.E.2d 222, 229 (1991). The negligence alleged in this case does not deprive the Industrial Commission of jurisdiction.
Nevertheless, we affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals on other grounds. The defendants in this case are public officials. “As long as a public officer lawfully exercises the judgment and discretion with which he is invested by virtue of his office, keeps within the scope of his official authority, and acts without malice or corruption, he is protected from liability.” Smith v. State, 289 N.C. 303, 331, 222 S.E.2d 412, 430 (1976); accord Smith v. Hefner, 235 N.C. 1, 7, 68 S.E.2d 783, 787 (1952). The defendants were undoubtedly acting within the scope of their official authority when they granted parole to DeGregory and refused to revoke his parole. There was nothing *184 corrupt or malicious in their actions. Indeed, we agree with the conclusion of Deputy Commissioner Markham that the members of the Parole Commission could reasonably rely on the most recent available psychological evaluation and recommendations of prison officials in granting the parole, and the violations incurred by DeGregory while he was on parole were not of the type which would indicate he would commit violent acts if he remained on parole.
The Industrial Commission correctly dismissed the claims.
MODIFIED AND AFFIRMED.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.