The N.C. Court of Appeals has clarified the conditions under which a local government can be sued. The ruling comes in the case of a Greensboro man who was injured while being transported in the back of a police car.
In December 1994, Officer T. H. Branson of the Greensboro Police Department was transporting John Clayton from Clayton’s house to the city magistrate’s office. Clayton was not wearing a seat belt when Branson maneuvered the car aggressively to avoid a collision while driving well over the posted speed limit. Clayton hit the metal screen and was injured. He subsequently had three back operations and continues to suffer significant back pain.
A jury awarded $100 in damages for the back injuries — and $1.5 million for a violation of Clayton’s constitutional rights when the city refused to settle the case. Superior Court Judge Ronald E. Spivey found the two parts of the verdict contradictory and ordered a new trial. He rejected a motion for a judgment, notwithstanding the verdict made by the city and officer, who contended that sovereign immunity precluded the lawsuit. Both sides appealed Spivey’s ruling.
The doctrine of sovereign immunity limits the conditions under which the government or its agents can be sued. To win a claim, a plaintiff must prove more than mere negligence. Rather, North Carolina law requires “gross negligence,” which the N.C. Supreme Court has defined as occurring when “the act is done purposely and with … a conscious disregard of the safety of others.” Examples of gross negligence in motor-vehicle operations include driving while impaired, racing on public streets, or extreme speeding.
The Court of Appeals found that Clayton’s claim did not, as a matter of law, rise to the level of gross negligence.
“Plaintiff’s claim essentially rests upon evidence that Branson drove 30 or 35 miles above the legal speed limit although he knew plaintiff was not wearing a seat belt, and that he had to brake suddenly and swerve the car to avoid a collision,” wrote Judge Eric Levinson for the Court of Appeals.
“This evidence is sufficient to establish simple negligence. Plaintiff cites no precedent finding gross negligence under circumstances similar to those in the present case, and we find none.”
The appeals court also rejected Clayton’s claims that his constitutional rights had been violated by the city not offering him a settlement. The court noted that Clayton had no right to sue, given the facts of the case, hence had no expectation of a settlement.
The city’s policy also bore a rational relationship to legitimate governmental goals, thus defeating a substantive due-process claim. Clayton’s equal-protection claim was found equally wanting.
The case is Clayton v. Branson, (04-884).
http://www.aoc.state.nc.us/www/public/coa/opinions/2005/040884-1.htm
Michael Lowrey is associate editor of Carolina Journal.