Long v. Fowler

• Decision Date: 13 August 2021
• Docket Number: No. 303A20,303A20
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: ESTATE OF Melvin Joseph LONG, BY AND THROUGH Marla Hudson LONG, Administratrix v. James D. FOWLER, Individually, David A. Matthews, Individually, Dennis F. Kinsler, Individually, Robert J. Burns, Individually, Michael T. Vancour, Individually, and Michael S. Scarborough, Individually

378 N.C. 138

861 S.E.2d 686

ESTATE OF Melvin Joseph LONG, BY AND THROUGH Marla Hudson LONG, Administratrix

v.James D. FOWLER, Individually, David A. Matthews, Individually, Dennis F. Kinsler, Individually, Robert J. Burns, Individually, Michael T. Vancour, Individually, and Michael S. Scarborough, Individually

No. 303A20

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Filed August 13, 2021

Hardison & Cochran, PLLC, by John Paul Godwin; and Sanford Thompson, PLLC, by Sanford Thompson IV, Edenton, for plaintiff-appellee.

Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein LLP, Raleigh, by Jonathan E. Hall and Patrick M. Meacham ; and Joshua H. Stein, Attorney General, by Melissa K. Walker, Assistant Attorney General, Shannon Cassell, Civil Bureau Chief, and Sarah G. Boyce, Deputy Solicitor General, for defendant-appellants.

EARLS, Justice.

¶ 1 This case raises the question of whether the estate of an individual killed by the allegedly negligent acts of State employees can proceed in state court to assert wrongful death claims against those employees in their individual capacities or whether such a suit is barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity. Following our precedent, sovereign immunity does not apply to suits against state employees in their individual capacities. We therefore hold that the trial court erred in dismissing the complaint on those grounds.

¶ 2 The tragic event giving rise to plaintiff's claims occurred on the morning of 20 January 2017, when Melvin Joseph Long was working to reconnect a trailer-mounted chiller on the campus of North Carolina State University (NCSU). To do so, he needed to remove metal flanges that capped two water pipes on the chiller. However, unbeknownst to Mr. Long, the pipes had become filled with pressurized gas after water in the pipes froze and the pipes cracked. As he began to loosen one of the metal flanges, it shot off the water pipe and hit him in the face with great force. Mr. Long died from his injuries five days later, on 25 January 2017.

¶ 3 Following his death, Mr. Long's estate brought the present action against James D. Fowler, David A. Matthews, Dennis F. Kinsler, Robert J. Burns, Michael T. Vancour, and Michael S. Scarborough (defendants), NCSU employees who had worked on the chiller during the months before Mr. Long's injury and, according to plaintiff's allegations, caused his injury. In addition to arguing that the complaint failed to allege substantive elements of Mr. Long's claims, defendants have asked us to hold that Mr. Long's claims are brought against defendants in their official capacities or, in the alternative, that claims such as those brought by Mr. Long are necessarily claims against the State that cannot be brought against defendants in their individual capacities. Doing so would require us to overturn several decades of this Court's precedent establishing that claims brought against State employees in their individual capacities are not subject to the doctrine of sovereign immunity. However, we are constrained to promote the "stability in the law and uniformity in its application" which may only be achieved through "respect for the opinions of our predecessors." Wiles v. Welparnel Constr. Co. , 295 N.C. 81, 85, 243 S.E.2d 756 (1978).

¶ 4 The tie between injury and remedy is so fundamental to our law that it is enshrined in the first article of our state constitution—"every person for an injury done him in his lands, goods, person, or reputation shall have remedy by due course of law." N.C. Const. art. I, § 18. Hewing close to our precedent in this case maintains the general principle that the law provides remedies to injured persons. Cf. Wirth v. Bracey , 258 N.C. 505, 508, 128 S.E.2d 810 (1963) ("The obvious intention of the General Assembly in enacting the Tort Claims Act was to enlarge the rights and remedies of a person injured by the actionable negligence of an employee of a State agency while acting in the course of his employment."). By preserving remedies in tort, we "deter certain kinds of conduct by imposing liability when that conduct causes harm." Haarhuis v. Cheek , 255 N.C. App. 471, 480, 805 S.E.2d 720 (2017) (quoting Dan B. Dobbs, Paul T. Hayden & Ellen M. Bublick, The Law of Torts § 14 (2d ed. 2011)). As we have previously stated, "[t]here can be little doubt that immunity fosters neglect and breeds irresponsibility, while liability promotes care and caution." Rabon v. Rowan Mem'l Hosp., Inc. , 269 N.C. 1, 13, 152 S.E.2d 485 (1967). Defendants in this case were sued in their individual capacities, and the complaint adequately stated claims for the tort relief sought by Mr. Long's estate. As a result, the trial court erroneously granted defendant's motion to dismiss, and we affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals reversing that order.

I. Background

¶ 5 Since this case comes to us on the trial court's order granting a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1), 12(b)(2), and 12(b)(6) of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure, we accept the allegations in the complaint as true. Corwin v. British Am. Tobacco PLC , 371 N.C. 605, 611, 821 S.E.2d 729 (2018) ( Rule 12(b)(1) ); Parker v. Town of Erwin , 243 N.C. App. 84, 96, 776 S.E.2d 710 (2015) ( Rule 12(b)(2) ); Bridges v. Parrish , 366 N.C. 539, 541, 742 S.E.2d 794 (2013) ( Rule 12(b)(6) ).

¶ 6 The Complaint alleges that in December 2016, NCSU owned, operated, and used a large, trailer-mounted chiller. Around 21 December 2016, one or more of defendants, pursuant to a work order completed during the course of their employment, shut the chiller down, disconnecting its power and water sources. At that time, they drained water from the chiller. However, two signs on the chiller contained a warning indicating that it was "not possible to drain all water" from the chiller and that the chiller "must be drained and refilled with" antifreeze solution "[f]or freeze protection during shut-down." Similarly, the chiller's operating manual instructed that the chiller should be filled with antifreeze to "prevent freeze-up damage to the cooler tubes." Defendants did not put antifreeze into the chiller.

¶ 7 Almost two weeks later, on 3 January 2017, one or more defendants tightly secured heavy metal flanges, weighing approximately 13.1 pounds, to the ends of the chiller's water pipes to cap the pipes. A few days after that, the area experienced a hard freeze, with temperatures falling as low as nine degrees Fahrenheit. Water remaining in the pipes froze and ruptured the pipes, which caused the pipes to fill with a pressurized refrigerant gas. The gas built up in the pipes behind the metal flanges, and the pipes became pressurized.

¶ 8 On 20 January 2017, Mr. Long attempted to loosen the flanges on the chiller pipes so that the chiller could be reconnected. As he began doing so, one of the flanges flew off the end of the pipe, propelled by the pressurized refrigerant gas, and struck him in the face. The flange knocked off part of Mr. Long's skull, and he died five days later.

¶ 9 Marla Hudson Long, Mr. Long's wife and the personal representative of Mr. Long's estate, filed the instant action in Superior Court, Person County, on 13 November 2018. On 19 February 2019, defendants filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1), 12(b)(2), and 12(b)(6) of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure, arguing that the trial court lacked jurisdiction over the subject matter and over the person of defendants and that the complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. On 21 February 2019, defendants filed their answer and defenses. Following a hearing on 8 April 2019, the trial court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss in an order filed 3 May 2019.

¶ 10 Following the trial court's order granting defendants’ motion to dismiss, the estate appealed to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's order in a divided decision, holding that defendants, employees of NCSU, had been sued in their individual capacities and were therefore not entitled to the defense of sovereign immunity and that the complaint had adequately stated claims for negligence and gross negligence. Estate of Long v. Fowler , 270 N.C. App. 241, 250, 252–53, 841 S.E.2d 290 (2020). The dissent, on the other hand, would have held that the complaint failed to adequately plead negligence or gross negligence and that defendants were entitled to sovereign immunity because the allegedly negligent actions occurred within the scope of their employment as public employees. Id. at 254–55, 257, 841 S.E.2d 290 (Tyson, J., dissenting).

¶ 11 Before this Court, defendants assert that they are being sued in their official capacities and that the suit is actually one against NCSU, which is entitled to sovereign immunity. They also argue that the complaint fails to state claims for negligence and gross negligence because it does not allege facts establishing proximate cause, and that the complaint fails to adequately allege claims for punitive damages. We reject these arguments and affirm the Court of Appeals. A suit against State employees is not subject to the doctrine of sovereign immunity when brought against the employees in their individual capacities. The complaint in this case indicates that it is brought against defendants in their individual capacities. Moreover, the complaint adequately alleges that Mr. Long's injury was proximately caused by defendants’ conduct and adequately alleges that defendants acted with the requisite willful or wanton conduct to support a claim for punitive damages.

II. Analysis

A. Sovereign immunity

¶ 12 When reviewing a trial court's order granting a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1), "we apply de novo review, accepting the allegations in the complaint as true and viewing them in the light most favorable to the non-moving party." Corwin , 371 N.C. at 611, 821 S.E.2d 729.¹ We review de novo "[q]uestions of law regarding the applicability of sovereign or governmental immunity."

Wray v. City...