holding that if the words in the statute are clear, certain, and intelligible, then they must be given their natural or ordinary meaning
How later courts described this case
- holding that if the words in the statute are clear, certain, and intelligible, then they must be given their natural or ordinary meaning
- “The wording in the [Tort Claims Act] is clear, certain and intelligible.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Bobbitt, J.,
concurring. Under the Tort Claims Act, G.S., Ch. 143, Art. 31, the basis of liability is “a negligent act of a State employee while acting within the scope of his employment.” (Italics added.) Ordinarily, a prisoner is not considered “a State employee.” “Employed,” as used in G.S. 148-49.3, indicates the activities in which the prisoners at Camp Butner are to engage, rather than their relationship to the State. Such prisoner, when acting for the State and as directed by his superior, may rightly be considered an agent of the State.
*337 Is “employee” synonymous with “agent?” An employee is an agent, but an agent is not necessarily an employee.
In my opinion, our Tort Claims Act should be strictly construed. This is in accord with the rulings of most courts. 49 Am. Jur., States, Territories, and Dependencies, sec. 97; 81 CJS, States, sec. 215. Waiver of immunity beyond the provisions of the Act as strictly construed is a matter for determination by the General Assembly.
Under strict construction, the claimant cannot recover in this proceeding.