Justia North Carolina Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

During the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic, a patient received medical care that included a hysterectomy performed by a physician at a local medical center. Following the procedure, the patient experienced significant complications, including infection, sepsis, and additional surgeries, which led to prolonged recovery and ongoing health issues. The patient and her husband filed a lawsuit against the physician, the medical practice, and the hospital, alleging negligence and gross negligence in the performance of the surgery and subsequent care.The defendants moved to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing that they were immune from civil liability under North Carolina’s Emergency or Disaster Treatment Protection Act, which was enacted in response to the pandemic. They asserted that the Act provided them with immunity because the care was rendered during the pandemic and was impacted by it, and that the complaint did not allege bad faith. The Superior Court in Pitt County denied the motions to dismiss. The defendants appealed, and the North Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s order, holding that the requirements for statutory immunity under the Emergency Act were not met on the face of the complaint and that the denial of the motions to dismiss was not immediately appealable as a matter of right.The Supreme Court of North Carolina reviewed the case and held that the trial court’s denial of the motions to dismiss was an interlocutory order and not immediately appealable. The Court concluded that the Emergency Act provides immunity from liability, not from suit, and therefore does not create a substantial right warranting immediate appeal. The Court also found that the denial of the motions did not implicate personal jurisdiction under the relevant statute. As a result, the Supreme Court vacated the Court of Appeals’ judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Land v. Whitley" on Justia Law

Melvin Joseph Long was fatally injured while working on an industrial chiller at North Carolina State University. The chiller, which had been improperly winterized by university maintenance employees, developed internal pressure after water left in its tubes froze and caused the tubes to burst, allowing refrigerant to enter and pressurize the system. When Long, an OSHA-certified pipefitter, attempted to remove a flange from the chiller, the pressurized component caused the flange to detach explosively, striking him and resulting in his death.After the incident, Long’s estate filed a wrongful death action in the Superior Court of Person County against the university employees involved. The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendants, finding no genuine issue of material fact and concluding that the defendants were entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The estate appealed, arguing that issues of foreseeability and contributory negligence should have precluded summary judgment. The North Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision, holding that the accident was not a foreseeable result of the defendants’ actions and, alternatively, that contributory negligence barred recovery.The Supreme Court of North Carolina reviewed the case de novo. It held that the uncontradicted evidence demonstrated the accident resulted from an unforeseeable sequence of events, and that foreseeability is a necessary element of proximate cause for actionable negligence. The Court found that neither the defendants’ training nor the equipment manuals provided any basis to reasonably foresee the type of injury that occurred. Accordingly, the Supreme Court of North Carolina affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, upholding summary judgment for the defendants. View "Long v. Fowler" on Justia Law

The plaintiff, after consuming a significant amount of alcohol and becoming heavily intoxicated, joined a group of friends at a municipal golf course and later proceeded to the driving range. While at the driving range, the plaintiff sat in a golf cart, distracted by his phone and unaware of his surroundings. The cart’s exact position was disputed, but evidence showed it was in or near the range of play. Defendant Hendricks, one of the group, hit a golf ball from the tee-off area, which struck the plaintiff in the eye, causing serious injury. The plaintiff did not see the ball coming and was unaware of the risk due to his lack of attention and intoxication.The plaintiff filed a negligence suit in the Superior Court, Wilson County, against both Hendricks and the City of Wilson, alleging negligent conduct and inadequate safety measures. Both defendants raised contributory negligence as a defense, and the City also asserted governmental immunity. The trial court granted summary judgment for both defendants, finding the plaintiff contributorily negligent as a matter of law. The plaintiff appealed, and a divided panel of the North Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the plaintiff’s lack of situational awareness, due in part to intoxication and distraction, barred recovery. The majority also found no genuine issue of material fact regarding the cart’s location or movement and declined to address governmental immunity.The Supreme Court of North Carolina reviewed the case de novo and affirmed the Court of Appeals. The Court held that the plaintiff was contributorily negligent as a matter of law because the risk of injury was open and obvious, and a reasonably prudent person would have recognized and avoided the danger. The Court did not address the issue of governmental immunity, as contributory negligence was dispositive. View "Moseley v. Hendricks" on Justia Law

Daniel Jones signed a blank application for a homeowner’s insurance policy, trusting his agent, J. Kim Hatcher Insurance Agencies, Inc. (Hatcher), to complete it accurately. Jones relied on Hatcher’s assurance based on their prior dealings and the commission Hatcher would earn. After Hurricane Florence destroyed Jones’s home, his insurer refused to cover the losses, citing material misrepresentations in the application. Jones discovered that Hatcher had omitted the existence of a pond and understated the property size.Jones sued Hatcher for negligence and gross negligence, among other claims. Hatcher moved to dismiss the ordinary negligence claim under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing contributory negligence. The trial court granted Hatcher’s motion, but the Court of Appeals reversed, finding that dismissal was not warranted as the complaint did not necessarily defeat Jones’s claim for ordinary negligence. The Court of Appeals also affirmed the dismissal of Jones’s claim for punitive damages.The Supreme Court of North Carolina reviewed the case. It agreed with the Court of Appeals that Jones’s complaint did not show contributory negligence as a matter of law, as the factual circumstances could support that Jones acted with ordinary prudence in trusting Hatcher. The court also found that Jones’s complaint sufficiently alleged a claim for punitive damages based on Hatcher’s willful and wanton conduct, giving Hatcher adequate notice of the claims. Therefore, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision on the contributory negligence issue and reversed its decision on the punitive damages issue. View "Jones v. J. Kim Hatcher Ins. Agencies, Inc" on Justia Law

A fourteen-year-old boy, Tanner Smith, was vaccinated against COVID-19 at his school clinic without his or his mother Emily Happel's consent. The school clinic, operated in partnership with Old North State Medical Society (ONSMS), administered the vaccine despite lacking the required parental consent. Plaintiffs, Smith and Happel, sued the Guilford County Board of Education and ONSMS for battery and violations of their state constitutional rights.The Superior Court of Guilford County dismissed the case, agreeing with the defendants that the federal Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness (PREP) Act preempted the plaintiffs' state law claims, granting them immunity. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision, holding that the PREP Act's broad immunity shielded the defendants from liability for all of the plaintiffs' claims.The Supreme Court of North Carolina reviewed the case and held that the PREP Act's immunity only covers tort injuries and does not bar state constitutional claims. The court concluded that the PREP Act does not preempt claims brought under the state constitution, specifically those related to the right to control a child's upbringing and the right to bodily integrity. The court affirmed the dismissal of the battery claim but reversed the dismissal of the state constitutional claims and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Happel v. Guilford Cnty. Bd. of Education" on Justia Law

Gregory Cohane filed a lawsuit against The Home Missioners of America, the Roman Catholic Diocese of Charlotte, and Al Behm, alleging child sexual abuse by Behm and negligence by the other defendants. Cohane claimed that Behm, a clergyman employed by Glenmary and supervised by the Diocese, groomed and sexually abused him over several years, starting when he was nine years old. Behm's abuse continued even after he was transferred to different locations due to other allegations of misconduct. Cohane's lawsuit was filed in 2021, invoking the revival provision of the SAFE Child Act, which allows previously time-barred claims of child sexual abuse to be brought within a specific two-year window.The Superior Court of Mecklenburg County dismissed Cohane's claims against Glenmary and the Diocese, ruling that the revival provision only applied to direct abusers, not to institutions that enabled the abuse. Cohane appealed, and the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's decision, holding that the plain language of the revival provision was broad enough to include claims against both direct abusers and enablers.The Supreme Court of North Carolina reviewed the case and affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision. The court held that the revival provision of the SAFE Child Act, which revives any civil action for child sexual abuse otherwise time-barred under N.C.G.S. § 1-52, applies to claims against both direct abusers and those who enabled the abuse. The court emphasized that the plain language of the statute did not distinguish between different types of defendants and that traditional tort principles allow for recovery from both direct tortfeasors and those who contributed to the harm. Thus, Cohane's claims against Glenmary and the Diocese were revived under the SAFE Child Act. View "Cohane v. The Home Missioners of America" on Justia Law

Martin B. Sturdivant, an employee of the North Carolina Department of Public Safety, sustained a back injury while working as a corrections officer. The injury led to chronic back pain, and Sturdivant received temporary total disability payments through the workers' compensation system. As he approached the 500-week limit for these payments, he applied for extended compensation, claiming a total loss of wage-earning capacity.The North Carolina Industrial Commission denied Sturdivant's claim, concluding that he had not sustained a total loss of wage-earning capacity. The Commission interpreted this phrase to mean a total loss of the ability to earn wages in any employment. Sturdivant appealed to the North Carolina Court of Appeals, which rejected the Commission's interpretation. The Court of Appeals held that "total loss of wage-earning capacity" was synonymous with "total disability," incorporating a broader legal test.The Supreme Court of North Carolina reviewed the case and held that the phrase "total loss of wage-earning capacity" means the complete elimination of the capacity to earn any wages. The Court clarified that this phrase does not share the same legal meaning as "total disability." The Court found that the Industrial Commission's interpretation was correct and that the Commission's findings were supported by competent evidence. The Supreme Court modified the Court of Appeals' opinion to reject its statutory interpretation but otherwise affirmed the decision. View "Sturdivant v. Department of Public Safety" on Justia Law

Debra Cullen sued Logan Developers, Inc. for injuries sustained when she fell through a hole in her attic floor, which the defendant had cut to provide access to the home’s air handler. Cullen admitted she did not look before stepping backward into the hole, despite knowing it was unsafe to walk on non-floored parts of the attic. The hole was covered with insulation, making it an open and obvious risk.The Superior Court of Brunswick County granted summary judgment in favor of Logan Developers, finding Cullen contributorily negligent for failing to look where she was stepping and determining there were insufficient facts to support a claim of gross negligence. The Court of Appeals vacated this decision, holding that there were genuine issues of material fact regarding Cullen’s knowledge of the attic’s condition and whether Logan Developers’ actions constituted gross negligence.The Supreme Court of North Carolina reviewed the case and reversed the Court of Appeals' decision. The Supreme Court held that Cullen was contributorily negligent as a matter of law because the hole was an open and obvious risk that she could have avoided by exercising reasonable care. The court also found that Logan Developers did not exhibit the conscious disregard for Cullen’s safety necessary to prove gross negligence, even if they violated the North Carolina Building Code. Therefore, the trial court’s summary judgment in favor of Logan Developers was reinstated. View "Cullen v. Logan Developers, Inc" on Justia Law

In this case, Officer Ashton Lambert struck and killed Gregory Graham with his police cruiser while responding to a call. Graham's estate sued Lambert, the City of Fayetteville, and the Fayetteville Police Department, alleging negligence, gross negligence, and wrongful death.The trial court denied the City and Lambert's motions for summary judgment, arguing that governmental and public officer immunity barred the estate's claims. The Court of Appeals reversed this decision, leading to an appeal to the Supreme Court of North Carolina.The Supreme Court found that the Court of Appeals had improperly analyzed the summary judgment order. The Court of Appeals had focused on the sufficiency of the estate's complaint, rather than the presence of a genuine factual dispute. This was incorrect, as the court should have asked whether the evidence raised a genuine factual dispute on the existence and extent of the City’s waiver of immunity.The Supreme Court also found that the estate's claim that section 20-145 waived the city's governmental immunity failed as a matter of law. The statute, which exempts police officers from speed limits when chasing or apprehending criminal absconders, does not shield officers for their gross negligence. However, the statute does not contain clear language withdrawing immunity from a discrete government body.The court remanded the case to the Court of Appeals to analyze whether there was a genuine issue of material fact on whether the City waived governmental immunity by purchasing liability insurance. The court also clarified that section 20-145 does not waive the City’s governmental immunity for its officers’ grossly negligent driving. The Estate’s claim against the City remains intact unless otherwise waived by the purchase of liability insurance. View "Est. of Graham v. Lambert" on Justia Law

In this case, the Supreme Court of North Carolina dealt with the issue of whether a statute of limitations barred a defendant's counterclaim for negligence because it was filed one day after the three-year limitations period had expired. The court ruled that the counterclaim should be considered as having been filed on the same date that the plaintiff commenced his lawsuit, thus making it timely.The case originated from a two-automobile accident that occurred on 19 December 2015. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant over injuries he allegedly sustained in the accident on 19 December 2018. The defendant filed a counterclaim against the plaintiff for his own injuries on 20 December 2018, arguing that the plaintiff's own negligence caused the accident. The plaintiff moved for summary judgment, asserting that the counterclaim should be dismissed under N.C.G.S. § 1-52(16) because it was filed outside the statute’s three-year limit for personal injury claims.The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff. The defendant appealed, arguing that his counterclaim filed on 20 December 2018 should be deemed to relate back to the filing of the original complaint by the plaintiff on 19 December 2018, and thus should be considered timely filed within the three-year statute of limitations. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s summary judgment order dismissing the defendant’s counterclaim.The Supreme Court of North Carolina reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals, reasoning that for purposes of the statute of limitations in N.C.G.S. § 1-52(16), the filing of a compulsory counterclaim relates back to the filing of the complaint. Therefore, the court held that N.C.G.S. § 1-52(16) did not bar the defendant’s compulsory counterclaim against the plaintiff. The case was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. View "Upchurch v. Harp Builders, Inc" on Justia Law