Owen v. Haywood County, COA09-929.
| Decision Date | 20 July 2010 |
| Docket Number | No. COA09-929.,COA09-929. |
| Citation | 697 S.E.2d 357 |
| Parties | Jerry OWEN, Plaintiff,v.HAYWOOD COUNTY, Haywood Board of Commissioners, Haywood County Sheriff's Department, Sheriff Tom Alexander, Mike Shuler, Mark Williams, Defendants. |
| Court | North Carolina Court of Appeals |
697 S.E.2d 357
Jerry OWEN, Plaintiff,
v.
HAYWOOD COUNTY, Haywood Board of Commissioners, Haywood County Sheriff's Department, Sheriff Tom Alexander, Mike Shuler, Mark Williams, Defendants.
No. COA09-929.
Court of Appeals of North Carolina.
July 20, 2010.
McLean Law Firm, P.A., Waynesville, by Russell L. McLean, III and Lisa A. Kosir, for plaintiff-appellee.
Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, Charlotte, by Scott D. MacLatchie, for defendant-appellants Tom Alexander, Mike Shuler, and Mark Williams.
STEELMAN, Judge.
Where defendants' insurance policy expressly excludes coverage for claims for which the defense of sovereign immunity would be applicable, the trial court erred by denying defendants' motion for summary judgment on that basis.
On 14 April 2008, Jerry Owen (plaintiff) filed a complaint that alleged the following: on 18 April 2006, plaintiff was at the Haywood County Sheriff's Department attempting to secure warrants on certain individuals whom he alleged had entered his property and held his family at gun point. While plaintiff was at the Sheriff's Department, Deputy Sheriffs Mike Shuler (Shuler), Mark Williams (Williams), and a Deputy unknown to plaintiff, approached plaintiff and requested that he step outside of the building where they would discuss these matters further. Plaintiff alleged that while they were standing at the entrance to the facility, Shuler and the unknown Deputy jerked plaintiff's arm, pulled it around to his back, placed plaintiff in an arm lock position, and slammed him up against the wall. Plaintiff alleged this injured his arm and rotator cuff. Plaintiff was escorted into the building by Shuler and Williams, and was placed under arrest for unlawfully and willfully resisting, delaying, and obstructing Shuler in the performance of his duty, and assault on a government official. The charges were subsequently dismissed.
Plaintiff's complaint alleged nine causes of action against Shuler and Williams in their official capacities only: (1) assault by Shuler; (2) abuse of process by Shuler; (3) assault by Williams; (4) abuse of process by Williams; (5) false arrest; (6) malicious prosecution by Shuler; (7) malicious prosecution by Williams; (8) compensatory damages; and (9) punitive damages. Plaintiff alleged that Sheriff Tom Alexander (Alexander), the Haywood County Sheriff's Department, and Haywood County were all liable for the complained of conduct based upon respondeat superior. On 15 May 2008, Alexander, Shuler, and Williams (collectively, defendants) 1 filed an answer denying the material allegations of plaintiff's complaint and raising seven affirmative defenses, including that the action was barred by sovereign immunity. On 17 September 2008, defendants moved for summary judgment based upon sovereign immunity. On 15 June 2009, defendants' motion was denied. Defendants appeal.
Generally, a moving party may not appeal the denial of a motion for summary judgment because ordinarily such an order is interlocutory and does not affect a substantial right. Bockweg v. Anderson, 333 N.C. 486, 490, 428 S.E.2d 157, 160 (1993). “However, when the motion is made on the grounds of sovereign and qualified immunity, such a denial is immediately appealable, because to force a defendant to proceed with a trial from which he should be immune would vitiate the doctrine of sovereign immunity.” Smith v. Phillips, 117 N.C.App. 378, 380, 451 S.E.2d 309, 311 (1994) (citation omitted). In the instant case, defendants have asserted
The standard of review on a trial court's ruling on a motion for summary judgment is de novo. Forbis v. Neal, 361 N.C. 519, 524, 649 S.E.2d 382, 385 (2007). The entry of summary judgment is appropriate where “the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that any party is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hogan v. Cherokee Cnty.
...has held that such provisions do not waive a municipality's entitlement to sovereign immunity. See, e.g., Owen v. Haywood County, 205 N.C. App. 456, 460-61, 697 S.E.2d 357, 360 (2010) ; Estate of Earley v. Haywood Cty. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 204 N.C. App. 338, 342, 694 S.E.2d 405, 409 (2010)......
-
Perry v. Pamlico Cnty.
...and Strag). See, e.g., Seibold v. City of Kinston, 268 N.C. 615, 621–23, 151 S.E.2d 654, 658–59 (1966) ; Owen v. Haywood Cnty., 205 N.C.App. 456, 460–61, 697 S.E.2d 357, 360 (2010) ; Estate of Earley, 204 N.C.App. at 342–44, 694 S.E.2d at 409–10 ; Patrick v. Wake Cnty. Dep't of Human Servs.......
-
Evans v. Chalmers
...from similar provisions that North Carolina courts have held do preserve governmental immunity. See Owen v. Haywood Cnty., 205 N.C.App. 456, 697 S.E.2d 357, 359–60,review denied,364 N.C. 615, 705 S.E.2d 361 (2010); Estate of Earley ex rel. Earley v. Haywood Cnty. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 204 N......
-
McConnell v. Watauga Cnty.
...held to preserve governmental immunity. See, e.g., Evans v. Chalmers, 703 F.3d 636, 656 (4th Cir. 2012); Owen v. Haywood Cnty., 205 N.C. App. 456, 461, 697 S.E.2d 357, 360 (2010); Earley v. Haywood Cnty. DSS, 204 N.C. App. 338, 342, 694 S.E.2d 405, 409 (2010). Thus, Plaintiffs' official cap......