Hamlet soliloquy

One of Bob Orr's favorite opinions was a dissent.

The former state Supreme Court justice — and candidate for the Republican gubernatorial nomination — told Dome that he is proud of his dissent in Stone v. N.C. Department of Labor.

That 1998 case is better known for its majority opinion, which prevented survivors and victims' relatives of a deadly chicken plant fire in Hamlet from suing the state for negligence.

In a blistering dissent, then-Justice Orr wrote that the decision would "effectively eviscerate" the 1951 law that makes the state liable to civil lawsuits.

After the jump, a short primer on the decision.

—————

Background:

On Sept. 3, 1991, a fire broke out at the Imperial Food Products plant in Hamlet, killing 25 and injuring 56. It was the worst workplace disaster in state history.

Afterward, officials found 83 safety and health violations, including locked exits and a lack of a sprinkler and alarm systems. State inspectors had never visited the plant in 11 years in operation.

Survivors and relatives of victims of the fire sued the state Department of Labor for failing to inspect the plant. Their lawsuit made its way to the state Supreme Court, which issued an opinion on Feb. 6, 1998.

Legal Issues:

For most of North Carolina history, residents could not sue the state under a legal theory known as sovereign immunity.

In 1951, the state legislature passed the Tort Claims Act, which waived that immunity and said the state would be just as open to lawsuits as a corporation.

On a separate issue, the state Supreme Court ruled in the 1991 Braswell v. Braswell case that in most cases local police could not be sued simply for failing to stop a crime.

The 5-2 majority opinion in Stone v. Department of Labor extended that logic, saying that state agencies also could not be sued for failing to prevent harm.

Orr's Decision:

In a dissent, Orr argued that the majority was improperly turning a narrow exception for local police into a broad exemption for state agencies.

He argued that the majority opinion "erroneously takes a limited and obscure" exception and broadens it to "effectively eviscerate" the Tort Claims Act.

He also wrote that the decision about how much the state should be liable should be up to the legislature.

"To the extent the legislature wants to limit lawsuits in the future which are similar to the one before us, it can certainly amend the Act — or abolish it altogether and reimpose sovereign immunity," he wrote.

The Aftermath:

The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal.

Charles Daye, a professor of tort law at UNC-Chapel Hill, said that it's hard to measure how much the majority decision limited lawsuits against the state because most will now never be filed.

"It has had a chilling effect on people suing the state for negligence," he said.

Some argue that is a good thing. Then-Labor Commissioner Harry Payne told a reporter the state agency would be more effective because it wouldn't have to spend time and money defending itself in court.

"We can spend more time on the inspections, training and consulting that make these tragedies less likely to occur," he said.

Sources: "Court halts suit in fatal Hamlet fire," Charlotte Observer, Dec. 1, 1998; "State not liable for fatal fire in Hamlet," N&O, Feb. 7, 1998; North Carolina Law of Torts, by Charles Daye and Mark Morris, 2000.