- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
VIAR v. N.C. DEP'T OF TRANSP
Factual and Procedural Background
This opinion arises from an appeal pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-30(2) from a divided panel of the North Carolina Court of Appeals, which had reversed and remanded a decision and order entered by the North Carolina Industrial Commission on August 20, 2002. The appeal involves the Estate of Megan Rae Viar and the Estate of Macey Lauren Viar against the North Carolina Department of Transportation. The Supreme Court of North Carolina heard the case on December 6, 2004, and filed its opinion on April 7, 2005.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the plaintiff's appeal should be dismissed for failure to comply with Rules 10 and 28(b) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure.
- Whether the Court of Appeals erred by applying Rule 2 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure to suspend the Rules and address an issue not raised or argued by the plaintiff.
Arguments of the Parties
Defendant's Arguments
- The defendant contended that the plaintiff's appeal should be dismissed for violating the Rules of Appellate Procedure, consistent with the dissenting opinion of Judge Tyson in the Court of Appeals.
Plaintiff's Arguments
- The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the plaintiff's legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Steingress v. Steingress, 350 N.C. 64, 511 S.E.2d 298 (1999) | Mandatory nature of the Rules of Appellate Procedure and that failure to comply may result in dismissal of appeal. | The Court relied on this precedent to emphasize that failure to comply with Rules 10 and 28(b) warranted dismissal of the plaintiff's appeal. |
| Viar v. N.C. Dep't of Transp., 162 N.C. App. 362, 590 S.E.2d 909 (2004) | Application of Rule 2 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure to suspend procedural rules to address substantive issues. | The Court criticized the Court of Appeals majority for improperly suspending the Rules and addressing an issue not raised or argued by the plaintiff. |
| Bradshaw v. Stansberry, 164 N.C. 284, 79 S.E. 302 (1913) | Importance of consistently applying procedural rules to ensure fairness and notice to appellees. | The Court cited this case to support the principle that appellate courts should not create appeals for appellants and must enforce procedural rules consistently. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court emphasized that the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure are mandatory, citing Steingress v. Steingress, and that failure to comply with these rules justifies dismissal of an appeal. The plaintiff failed to comply with Rule 10(c)(1) by not numbering assignments of error or providing specific record references, and the second assignment of error lacked a plain and concise statement of legal basis without argumentation. Furthermore, under Rule 28(b)(6), the plaintiff abandoned the first assignment of error by failing to argue it in the brief.
The Court criticized the Court of Appeals majority for invoking Rule 2 to suspend the procedural rules and address an issue not raised or argued by the plaintiff, specifically the reasonableness of the defendant's delay in installing median barriers. The Supreme Court held that it is not the role of appellate courts to create an appeal for an appellant, and such suspension undermines the purpose of the procedural rules and deprives appellees of proper notice.
Accordingly, the Court agreed with the dissenting opinion in the Court of Appeals that the appeal should have been dismissed for failure to comply with the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
Holding and Implications
DISMISSED.
The Supreme Court vacated the decision of the Court of Appeals and dismissed the plaintiff's appeal due to failure to comply with the mandatory Rules of Appellate Procedure. This decision enforces strict adherence to procedural rules in appellate practice and clarifies that appellate courts will not relax these rules to address issues not properly raised or argued by appellants. The direct effect is the dismissal of the appeal, and no new substantive precedent was established.
Appeal and Error — failure to comply with Appellate Procedure Rules — dismissal of appeal
The Court of Appeals should have dismissed plaintiff's appeal in an action under the Tort Claims Act for failure to comply with Rules 10 and 28(b) of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. The majority opinion in the Court of Appeals erred by applying Rule 2 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure to suspend the Rules and address the issue, not raised or argued by plaintiff, which was the basis of the Industrial Commission's decision.
PER CURIAM.
On appeal to this Court, defendant contends that plaintiff's appeal should be dismissed in accordance with Judge Tyson's dissenting opinion in the Court of Appeals for violation of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. We agree.
The North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure are mandatory and "failure to follow these rules will subject an appeal to dismissal." Steingress v. Steingress, 350 N.C. 64, 65, 511 S.E.2d 298, 299 (1999). In the instant case, plaintiff has failed to comply with Rule 10 and Rule 28(b). With respect to assignments of error, Rule 10(c) provides the following:
(1) Form; Record References. A listing of the assignments of error upon which an appeal is predicated shall be stated at the conclusion of the record on appeal in short form without argument, and shall be separately numbered. Each assignment of error shall so far as practicable, be confined to a single issue of law; and shall state plainly, concisely and without argumentation the legal basis upon which error is assigned. An assignment of error is sufficient if it directs the attention of the appellate court to the particular error about which the question is made, with clear and specific record or transcript references. Questions made as to several issues or findings relating to one ground of recovery or defense may be combined in one assignment of error, if separate record or transcript references are made.
N.C.R. App. P. 10(c)(1). In this case, plaintiff presented two assignments of error, neither of which was numbered or made specific record references. Moreover, the second stated assignment of error did not "state plainly, concisely and without argumentation the legal basis upon which error [was] assigned."
With respect to an appellant's brief, Rule 28(b) requires the following:
(6) An argument, to contain the contentions of the appellant with respect to each question presented. Each question shall be separately stated. Immediately following each question shall be a reference to the assignments of error pertinent to the question, identified by their numbers and by the pages at which they appear in the printed record on appeal. Assignments of error not set out in the appellant's brief, or in support of which no reason or argument is stated or authority cited, will be taken as abandoned.
N.C.R. App. P. 28(b)(6). Plaintiff made no argument as to the first stated assignment of error in his brief to the Court of Appeals. Thus, this assignment of error is deemed abandoned under Rule 28(b)(6). Nevertheless, plaintiff's brief in the Court of Appeals refers to assignment of error one and then to the pages of the record containing the dissenting opinion in the Industrial Commission. Moreover, plaintiff's second stated assignment of error purports to challenge the Industrial Commission's conclusion of law, but the arguments in plaintiff's brief in the Court of Appeals do not address the issue upon which the Industrial Commission's conclusion of law was based.
The majority opinion in the Court of Appeals, recognizing the flawed content of plaintiff's appeal, applied Rule 2 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure to suspend the Rules. The majority opinion then addressed the issue, not raised or argued by plaintiff, which was the basis of the Industrial Commission's decision, namely, the reasonableness of defendant's decision to delay installation of the median barriers. The Court of Appeals majority asserted that plaintiff's Rules violations did not impede comprehension of the issues on appeal or frustrate the appellate process. Viar v. N.C. Dep't of Transp., 162 N.C. App. 362, 375, 590 S.E.2d 909, 919 (2004). It is not the role of the appellate courts, however, to create an appeal for an appellant. As this case illustrates, the Rules of Appellate Procedure must be consistently applied; otherwise, the Rules become meaningless, and an appellee is left without notice of the basis upon which an appellate court might rule. See Bradshaw v. Stansberry, 164 N.C. 284, 164 N.C. 356, 79 S.E. 302 (1913).
For the reasons stated herein and in that portion of the dissenting opinion in the Court of Appeals addressing plaintiff's violation of the Rules of Appellate Procedure, plaintiff's appeal should have been dismissed by the Court of Appeals. The decision of the Court of Appeals is vacated and plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
DISMISSED.
Alert