Court Rulings

<bold>1. Tort Claims Act — school bus accident — exclusive jurisdiction in</bold> <bold>Industrial Commission</bold> <block_quote> The Industrial Commission had exclusive jurisdiction over claims arising from a school bus accident in which a child riding a bicycle fell into the path of the bus, and the trial court did not err by dismissing claims filed in superior court. The legislative intent was for N.C.G.S. § <cross_reference>143-300.1</cross_reference> to allow the Industrial Commission to hear tort claims alleging negligence arising<page_number>Page 132</page_number> from and inseparably connected to events occurring at the time a school bus driver was operating the bus in the course of her employment.</block_quote> <bold>2. Schools and Education — bus accident — sovereign immunity not waived</bold> <block_quote> Even if the Industrial Commission did not have exclusive jurisdiction, the trial court did not err by dismissing claims arising from a school bus accident where defendant did not waive governmental immunity. Exclusions relating to automobiles in the board's risk management program and excess liability coverage applied here.</block_quote>

<bold>1. Associations; Schools and Education — standing — nonprofit</bold> <bold>organization — associational basis inapplicable</bold> <block_quote> Wake Cares, Inc., a nonprofit organization, did not have associational standing to bring a declaratory judgment action challenging a county board of education's plan to convert traditional calendar schools to year-round schools and then to assign students to those schools on a mandatory basis because the organization has no members and could not seek relief "on behalf of its members." Furthermore, the organization could not rely on<page_number>Page 2</page_number> the constituency theory of <italic>Hunt v. Washington State</italic> <italic>Apple Adver. Comm'n</italic>, <cross_reference>432 U.S. 333</cross_reference> (1977), to establish standing where it made no attempt to show that it meets the constituency test of that case.</block_quote> <bold>2. Declaratory Judgments; Schools and Education — standing — challenge to</bold> <bold>mandatory year-round schools — parents of students</bold> <block_quote> The individual plaintiffs, parents of public school students, have standing to bring a declaratory judgment action individually and as guardians ad litem of their children challenging a county board of education's plan to assign students to year-round schools on a mandatory basis because the individual plaintiffs were directly affected by the board's action where each of the students was initially assigned to a year-round school, and even though some of the students were ultimately reassigned to traditional calendar schools, they may still be assigned to year-round schools in the future.</block_quote> <bold>3. Declaratory Judgment; Schools and Education — subject matter</bold> <bold>jurisdiction — exhaustion of administrative remedies</bold> <block_quote> The trial court did not err by denying the board of education's motion to dismiss plaintiffs' complaint for a declaratory judgment based on an alleged fa