Appeals Court rules DOT had immunity in deaths on snow-covered interstate

The North Carolina Court of Appeals has ruled that the state Department of Transportation has immunity in a lawsuit seeking damages related to two deaths on a snow- and ice-covered interstate.

The unanimous decision Wednesday reversed a 2024 ruling against DOT from the North Carolina Industrial Commission.

Nathaniel Williams and Larry Kepley died in February 2014 when a driver struck them on Interstate 40 near the Wake County-Johnston County line.

The state was under a declared state of emergency because of a winter storm, according to the Appeals Court’s opinion. Both lanes of the interstate were cleared of snow and ice on one side of the county line. One lane remained covered with snow and ice on the other side.

Problems started when a driver operating a Freightliner bobtail tractor for company C.R. England lost traction on I-40 when crossing from Wake into Johnston County. “The tractor spun and landed perpendicular to the road,” wrote Judge John Arrowood.

Williams also “lost control of his vehicle,” while Kepley “saw the tractor and pulled over to provide assistance,” Arrowood wrote. “Both Mr. Williams and Mr. Kepley were standing outside near the scene of the accident when they were struck and killed by another driver.”

The two men’s estates filed wrongful death lawsuits against C.R. England in 2015. The company agreed to settlements totaling $1.65 million.

C.R. England filed a claim with the Industrial Commission to seek a contribution from the DOT.

“Plaintiff alleged that ‘various named and unnamed employees of [NCDOT]’ were negligent in the design and execution of lane adjustments on I-40W, by failing to warn approaching traffic of the dangerous conditions, and in the training, supervision, and execution of snow removal,” Arrowood explained. “Plaintiff claimed that NCDOT’s negligence contributed to the traffic accident on 13 February and that the plaintiff was therefore entitled to recovery of contribution for the settlements with Mr. Williams’ and Mr. Kepley’s estates.”

The Industrial Commission ruled against the DOT in July 2024.

The commission “found that NCDOT was negligent in ‘fail[ing] to exercise reasonable care to implement reasonable training and dry run protocols for snowplow drivers necessary for adequate maintenance of the roadways during a winter storm event.’ Lastly, because the negligent training occurred prior to the declared state of emergency on 11 February, the Full Commission determined that Emergency Management Act (‘EMA’) immunity did not apply,” the Appeals Court opinion noted.

“To support its finding of negligence, the Full Commission noted that while NCDOT’s Safe Operating Procedures required operators inspecting snowplow routes to ‘note or mark’ hazards, it did not require them to make documentation of or otherwise memorialize those hazards,” Arrowood wrote. “The Full Commission found this procedure unreasonable as the snowplow routes are long, hard to visualize during a storm, and may not be cleared by the same operator who originally inspected the route, increasing the possibility that hazards will be overlooked or forgotten.”

Appellate judges disagreed.

“The EMA operates in conjunction with sovereign immunity and the Tort Claims Act (‘TCA’),” Arrowood explained. “Generally, the doctrine of sovereign immunity grants the State immunity from suit absent a waiver. The TCA provides such a waiver of immunity for negligence claims against the State and any of its departments. However, the EMA effectively retracts the TCA’s waiver and reinstates immunity from negligence claims against the State where the State is engaged in emergency management.”

Arrowood pointed to the Appeals Court’s 2024 ruling granting government immunity when a school bus driver crashed into another vehicle while delivering food to students during the COVID-19 pandemic. “The Court reasoned that because the bus was being used for an emergency management purpose — minimizing the adverse effects of the COVID-19 emergency ‘by providing food to students who might otherwise go hungry’ — at the time of the accident, EMA immunity applied.”

Immunity extends to preparations that take place before an emergency, Arrowood wrote.

“The plain language of the EMA contemplates pre-emergency preparations and provides immunity,” he wrote. “N.C.G.S. § 166A-19.3(8) states that emergency management is a ‘never-ending preparedness cycle’ which includes ‘planning.’ The broad definition of emergency management requires that EMA immunity encompass all stages of preparing for emergencies, including training personnel to respond to emergencies.”

“Limiting EMA immunity only to actions made during an active or imminent emergency would impose an end to the cycle of emergency management, contrary to the statute,” Arrowood added. “Thus, whether EMA immunity applies is not simply a question of timing but rather of relation to emergency ‘planning, prevention, mitigation, warning, movement, shelter, emergency assistance, and recovery.’”

 “The negligence alleged in this case occurred in preparation of an emergency and falls under the EMA,” the Appeals Court concluded. “NCDOT’s training and adoption of snowplow operating procedures is done in preparation for winter weather events. Indeed, the act of clearing roads of snow and ice is meant to ‘minimize the adverse effects’ of a winter storm by making the roads safer to use.”

“Accordingly, the training of snowplow operators is ‘an important function of safety’ and a crucial step in planning for emergencies,” Arrowood explained. “As such, though these preparations took place before the occurrence of winter storm Pax, they are part of the emergency preparedness cycle and protected by EMA immunity.”

Judges Allegra Collins and Christopher Freeman joined Arrowood’s opinion.