Handout 1 - School of Government - University of North Carolina at ...
Handout 1 - School of Government - University of North Carolina at ...
Handout 1 - School of Government - University of North Carolina at ...
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
Liability – Public Duty Doctrine<br />
• The public duty doctrine did not apply to provide immunity to county DSS or its employees in a<br />
wrongful de<strong>at</strong>h action alleging negligence in a child protective services m<strong>at</strong>ter.<br />
Christmas v. Cabarrus County, ___ N.C. App. ___, 664 S.E.2d 649 (8/19/08).<br />
http://www.aoc.st<strong>at</strong>e.nc.us/www/public/coa/opinions/2008/071301-1.htm<br />
Facts: DSS received several reports about a young child who had various injuries. DSS investig<strong>at</strong>ed on<br />
two d<strong>at</strong>es and concluded th<strong>at</strong> the home was “conditionally safe.” Several weeks l<strong>at</strong>er, on December 24, a<br />
physician reported th<strong>at</strong> the child possibly had suffered a non-accidental trauma. The on-call social worker<br />
determined th<strong>at</strong> the child could be released back to the mother’s care and th<strong>at</strong> DSS would assess the case<br />
on December 27. A social worker visited the home on December 31 and when no one answered the door,<br />
left a note asking the mother to contact DSS. On January 2, EMS was called to the home and declared the<br />
child dead. The mother and her boyfriend were criminally convicted in connection with the child’s de<strong>at</strong>h.<br />
The executor <strong>of</strong> the child’s est<strong>at</strong>e brought a wrongful de<strong>at</strong>h action against DSS, its director, and various<br />
other individuals. The trial court granted the individual defendants’ motions to dismiss the claims against<br />
them in their individual capacities and denied the motions to dismiss claims against them in their <strong>of</strong>ficial<br />
capacities. <strong>Government</strong> immunity had been waived by the county’s purchase <strong>of</strong> insurance, and the trial<br />
court rejected defendants’ argument th<strong>at</strong> they had immunity pursuant to the public duty doctrine.<br />
Held: Affirmed.<br />
Although the appell<strong>at</strong>e courts have extended applic<strong>at</strong>ion <strong>of</strong> the public duty doctrine <strong>at</strong> the st<strong>at</strong>e level, with<br />
respect to local governments the doctrine has been applied only to law enforcement agencies carrying out<br />
their general duty to protect the public as a whole. The court declined to extend it in this case.<br />
Liability – Insurance Coverage<br />
• Alleged negligent supervision claims were not excluded from county’s liability insurance policies.<br />
Fulford v. Jenkins, ___ N.C. App. ___, ___ S.E.2d ___ (2/17/09).<br />
http://www.aoc.st<strong>at</strong>e.nc.us/www/public/coa/opinions/2009/080675-1.htm<br />
Facts: A juvenile placed by DSS with his grandmother stabbed a neighbor to de<strong>at</strong>h. Plaintiff filed suit<br />
against the county, the county DSS and its director, and several social workers, alleging negligent<br />
supervision <strong>of</strong> the 13-year-old juvenile. The trial court granted defendants’ motions to dismiss the action<br />
against them in their individual capacities and denied the motion with respect to claims against the county<br />
and against individuals in their <strong>of</strong>ficial capacities. Defendants argued th<strong>at</strong> they were protected by<br />
governmental immunity because, even though the county had purchased liability insurance, the actions or<br />
inactions complained fell within the exclusions for Public Officials and for bodily injury.<br />
Held: Affirmed.<br />
The court <strong>of</strong> appeals held th<strong>at</strong> summary judgment was properly denied because there was still a claim for<br />
negligent supervision. The court said th<strong>at</strong> accepting defendants’ reading <strong>of</strong> the insurance policies would<br />
suggest th<strong>at</strong> the county had purchased insurance th<strong>at</strong> provided almost no coverage.<br />
Janet Mason<br />
<strong>School</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Government</strong><br />
The <strong>University</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>North</strong> <strong>Carolina</strong> <strong>at</strong> Chapel Hill<br />
T: 919.966.4246 F: 919.962.2706<br />
mason@sog.unc.edu<br />
19