public duty doctrine in North Carolina

2022On the other hand, we do believe that we need to clarify the relationship between the public duty doctrine and the duty element of a negligence claim to make it clear that the existence of a legal duty running from a state agency to a tort claimant does not turn on whether the public duty doctrine applies in a given case. ¶ 70 The public duty doctrine “provides that governmental entities and their agents owe duties only to the general public, not to individuals, absent a ‘special relationship’ or ‘special duty’ between the entity and the injured party.” Stone, 347 N.C. at 477– 78. (citing Bras

2022The public duty doctrine was designed “to prevent an overwhelming burden of liability on governmental agencies with limited resources,” id. at 481 (cleaned up), by making it clear that a “governmental entity is not liable for negligence for failure to carry out statutory duties,” Isenhour v. Hutto, 350 N.C. 601 , 606–07 (1999).

2014Lovelace v. City of Shelby, 351 N.C. 458, 461 , 526 S.E.2d 652, 654 (2000) (“While this Court has extended the public duty doctrine to state agencies required by statute to conduct inspections for the public’s general protection, we have never expanded the public duty doctrine to any local government agencies other than law enforcement departments when they are exercising their general duty to protect the public.” (internal citations omitted)); see also Wood v. Guilford Cty., 355 N.C. 161, 169 , 558 S.E.2d 490, 496 (2002) (explaining that public duty doctrine “retains limited vitality, as appl

2014Lovelace v. City of Shelby, 351 N.C. 458, 461 , 526 S.E.2d 652, 654 (2000) (“While this Court has extended the public duty doctrine to state agencies required by statute to conduct inspections for the public’s general protection, we have never expanded the public duty doctrine to any local government agencies other than law enforcement departments when they are exercising their general duty to protect the public.” (internal citations omitted)); see also Wood v. Guilford Cty., 355 N.C. 161, 169 , 558 S.E.2d 490, 496 (2002) (explaining that public duty doctrine “retains limited vitality, as appl

2022On the other hand, we do believe that we need to clarify the relationship between the public duty doctrine and the duty element of a negligence claim to make it clear that the existence of a legal duty running from a state agency to a tort claimant does not turn on whether the public duty doctrine applies in a given case. ¶ 70 The public duty doctrine “provides that governmental entities and their agents owe duties only to the general public, not to individuals, absent a ‘special relationship’ or ‘special duty’ between the entity and the injured party.” Stone, 347 N.C. at 477– 78. (citing Bras

2022The Court of Appeals erred to the extent that it equated the nature and extent of the public duty doctrine as applied in proceedings conducted pursuant to the State Tort Claims Act with the nature and extent of the legal duty that is necessary to support a negligence claim. ¶ 73 Unlike the duty of care, which is an element of any negligence claim that a plaintiff must establish regardless of whether the claim is against a state agency under the State Tort Claims Act or a private party under the common law, see Stone, 347 N.C. at 479 , the public duty doctrine is an affirmative defense to an ot

2022State Ports Auth., 307 N.C. 522, 537 (1983) (determining the Industrial Commission had jurisdiction because the STCA applied to negligent actions taken by an employee of the State Ports Authority); Myers v. McGrady, 360 N.C. 460, 467 (2006) (“We hold that the public duty doctrine applies to negligence claims filed under the [STCA] against [the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources] for alleged mismanagement of forest fires.”); Stone v. N.C.

2022State Ports Auth., 307 N.C. 522, 537 (1983) (determining the Industrial Commission had jurisdiction because the STCA applied to negligent actions taken by an employee of the State Ports Authority); Myers v. McGrady, 360 N.C. 460, 467 (2006) (“We hold that the public duty doctrine applies to negligence claims filed under the [STCA] against [the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources] for alleged mismanagement of forest fires.”); Stone v. N.C.

2012Hunt, 348 N.C. at 197-99 , 499 S.E.2d at 750-51 (holding that the public duty doctrine barred a plaintiffs suit for negligent inspection of go-karts); Stone, 347 N.C. at 483 , 495 S.E.2d at 717 (holding that the public duty doctrine barred the plaintiffs’ suit for negligent inspection of a chicken plant).

2012Hunt, 348 N.C. at 197-99 , 499 S.E.2d at 750-51 (holding that the public duty doctrine barred a plaintiffs suit for negligent inspection of go-karts); Stone, 347 N.C. at 483 , 495 S.E.2d at 717 (holding that the public duty doctrine barred the plaintiffs’ suit for negligent inspection of a chicken plant).

2011App. 613, 616 , 561 S.E.2d 332, 334 (“An exhaustive review of the public duty doctrine as applied in North Carolina reveals no case in which the public duty doctrine has operated to shield a defendant from acts directly causing injury or death.”), disc. review denied, 356 N.C. 165 , 568 S.E.2d 199 (2002); see also Blaylock, 200 N.C.

2011See Isenhour, 350 N.C. at 608 , 517 S.E.2d at 126 (holding that the public duty doctrine is inapplicable where plaintiff is alleging that the governmental defendant breached an “affirmative, but limited,” duty owed to an “identifiable group”); see also Moses, 149 N.C.

2018As long as the claim is negligence, even couched in terms of "gross," "wanton," or "wilful," the public duty doctrine supports the dismissal of the complaint based on the failure to state a claim. 114 N.C.

2006Dept. of Correction, 124 N.C.App. 545, 547-48 , 479 S.E.2d 27, 28 (1996) (the public duty doctrine barred claim against the Department of Correction for alleged negligence in the supervision of a probationer), disc. review improvidently allowed, 346 N.C. 269 , 485 S.E.2d 293 (1997); Tise v. Yates Construction Co., 122 N.C.App. 582, 588-89 , 471 S.E.2d 102, 107 (1996) (the public duty doctrine shielded city from liability for its failure to inform construction company of potential tampering of construction equipment by trespassers where decedent died after construction equipment crushed him); S

2010This argument, however, is foreclosed by Thompson v. Waters, 351 N.C. 462 , 526 S.E.2d 650 (2000), in which our Supreme Court declined to apply the public duty doctrine to a claim against Lee County for negligent inspection of a house.

2010This argument, however, is foreclosed by Thompson v. Waters, 351 N.C. 462 , 526 S.E.2d 650 (2000), in which our Supreme Court declined to apply the public duty doctrine to a claim against Lee County for negligent inspection of a house.

2006Dept. of Correction, 124 N.C.App. 545, 547-48 , 479 S.E.2d 27, 28 (1996) (the public duty doctrine barred claim against the Department of Correction for alleged negligence in the supervision of a probationer), disc. review improvidently allowed, 346 N.C. 269 , 485 S.E.2d 293 (1997); Tise v. Yates Construction Co., 122 N.C.App. 582, 588-89 , 471 S.E.2d 102, 107 (1996) (the public duty doctrine shielded city from liability for its failure to inform construction company of potential tampering of construction equipment by trespassers where decedent died after construction equipment crushed him); S

2006Dept. of Correction, 124 N.C.App. 545, 547-48 , 479 S.E.2d 27, 28 (1996) (the public duty doctrine barred claim against the Department of Correction for alleged negligence in the supervision of a probationer), disc. review improvidently allowed, 346 N.C. 269 , 485 S.E.2d 293 (1997); Tise v. Yates Construction Co., 122 N.C.App. 582, 588-89 , 471 S.E.2d 102, 107 (1996) (the public duty doctrine shielded city from liability for its failure to inform construction company of potential tampering of construction equipment by trespassers where decedent died after construction equipment crushed him); S

2014Lovelace v. City of Shelby, 351 N.C. 458, 461 , 526 S.E.2d 652, 654 (2000) (“While this Court has extended the public duty doctrine to state agencies required by statute to conduct inspections for the public’s general protection, we have never expanded the public duty doctrine to any local government agencies other than law enforcement departments when they are exercising their general duty to protect the public.” (internal citations omitted)); see also Wood v. Guilford Cty., 355 N.C. 161, 169 , 558 S.E.2d 490, 496 (2002) (explaining that public duty doctrine “retains limited vitality, as appl

2014Lovelace v. City of Shelby, 351 N.C. 458, 461 , 526 S.E.2d 652, 654 (2000) (“While this Court has extended the public duty doctrine to state agencies required by statute to conduct inspections for the public’s general protection, we have never expanded the public duty doctrine to any local government agencies other than law enforcement departments when they are exercising their general duty to protect the public.” (internal citations omitted)); see also Wood v. Guilford Cty., 355 N.C. 161, 169 , 558 S.E.2d 490, 496 (2002) (explaining that public duty doctrine “retains limited vitality, as appl

2010App. 466, 469 , 466 S.E.2d 281, 283 (internal citation omitted), aff’d per curiam, 344 N.C. 729 , 477 S.E.2d 171 (1996). “[W]hen the public duty doctrine applies, the government entity, as the defendant, owes no legal duty to the plaintiff.” Blaylock v. N.C.

2010App. 466, 469 , 466 S.E.2d 281, 283 (internal citation omitted), aff'd per curiam, 344 N.C. 729 , 477 S.E.2d 171 (1996). “[W]hen the public duty doctrine applies, the government entity, as the defendant, owes no legal duty to the plaintiff.” Blaylock v. N.C.

2022The public duty doctrine was designed “to prevent an overwhelming burden of liability on governmental agencies with limited resources,” id. at 481 (cleaned up), by making it clear that a “governmental entity is not liable for negligence for failure to carry out statutory duties,” Isenhour v. Hutto, 350 N.C. 601 , 606–07 (1999).

2022For that reason, while the public duty doctrine protects governmental entities from liability based upon a failure to carry out a statutorily created duty that is designed to protect the public at large rather than a specific individual, Isenhour, 350 N.C. at 606–07, and “operates to prevent plaintiffs from establishing the first element of a negligence claim—duty to the individual plaintiff,” Ray, 366 N.C. at 5 , the mere fact that the doctrine does not apply with respect to a particular set of facts does not, without more, determine whether the duty of care necessary to support the assertion

2010App. 821, 826 , 487 S.E.2d 583, 587 (1997) (holding that the public duty doctrine applied to bar claim against city for negligence in housing inspections); Davis v. Messer, 119 N.C.

2010App. 44, 54-57, 60 , 457 S.E.2d 902, 908-12 (holding that the public duty doctrine applied to claims against the town and fire chief for negligence in responding to a fire call, although plaintiff presented sufficient evidence to show the “special duty” exception applied), disc. reviews denied, 341 N.C. 647 , 462 S.E.2d 508 (1995); Prevette v. Forsyth Cty., 110 N.C.

2018Accordingly, the public duty doctrine will apply when the allegedly tortious conduct involves a "discretionary determination made by the police officer." Lassiter , 168 N.C.

2018We disagreed with the plaintiff's contention that a "failure to call for medical assistance is a breach of a legal duty[,]" and reaffirmed that " '[i]t is placing this unreasonable hindsight based standard of liability upon a police officer when performing public duties which is exactly that which the public duty doctrine seeks to alleviate.' " Id. at 469 , 691 S.E.2d at 753 (quoting Lassiter , 168 N.C.

2014App. 789, 791 , 501 S.E.2d 379, 381 (1998) (“It is fundamental that actionable negligence is predicated on the existence of a legal duty owed by the defendant to the plaintiff.” (citation and quotation marks omitted)). “[I]n the absence of any such duty owed [to] the injured party by the defendant, there can be no liability [and] when the public duty doctrine applies, the government entity, as the defendant, owes no legal duty to the plaintiff.” Scott v. City of Charlotte, 203 N.C.

2005Gen.Stat. § 7A-27(d)(1) (2004); Derwort v. Polk County, 129 N.C.App. 789, 790-91 , 501 S.E.2d 379, 380 (1998) (a substantial right was affected where Polk County asserted the public duty doctrine); Hedrick v. Rains, 121 N.C.App. 466, 468 , 466 S.E.2d 281, 283 (1996) ("[W]e have held that orders denying dispositive motions grounded on the defense of governmental immunity are immediately reviewable as affecting a substantial right.").

2026The Court stated “[b]ecause the legislature left essentially all of our pre-amendment cases intact, there has not been a complete change in the law but instead only an explanation of the limited role of the public duty doctrine.” Id. - 16 - IN RE: APPLICATION OF DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC Opinion of the Court Here, a careful examination of Session Law 2025-78 reveals that it is not a clarifying amendment, but an altering one.

2022The Court of Appeals held that, in light of the plain statutory language, the public duty doctrine is only available as a defense in a proceeding held pursuant to the State Tort Claims Act if the alleged injury “is the result of (1) a law enforcement officer’s negligent failure to protect the plaintiff from actions of others or an act of God, or (2) a State officer’s, employee’s, involuntary servant’s, or agent’s negligent failure to perform a health or safety inspection required by statute.” Id. at 8 (citing N.C.G.S. § 143-299.1A(a)).

2014The public duty doctrine “acknowledges the limited resources of law enforcement and works against judicial imposition of an overwhelming burden of liability.” Little v. Atkinson, 136 N.C.

2010App. 430 , 524 S.E.2d 378 , disc. review denied, 351 N.C. 474 , 543 S.E.2d 492 (2000), this Court applied the public duty doctrine where police officers of the City of Gastonia failed to completely remove the remains of a victim from a crime scene and the victim’s family discovered bones and personal effects of the deceased.

2006The result here is also controlled by this Court's prior precedents in Myers; Lassiter v. Cohn, 168 N.C.App. 310 , 607 S.E.2d 688 (2005) (the public duty doctrine barred the plaintiff's claims against the city when, after a traffic accident, a city police officer asked the plaintiff to walk to the rear of his vehicle and the plaintiff was struck by a car); Little v. Atkinson, 136 N.C.App. 430, 433-34 , 524 S.E.2d 378, 381 (the public duty doctrine barred claims against the city and its police officers who failed to adequately inspect a crime scene before allowing relatives of the victim to vis

2006The result here is also controlled by this Court's prior precedents in Myers; Lassiter v. Cohn, 168 N.C.App. 310 , 607 S.E.2d 688 (2005) (the public duty doctrine barred the plaintiff's claims against the city when, after a traffic accident, a city police officer asked the plaintiff to walk to the rear of his vehicle and the plaintiff was struck by a car); Little v. Atkinson, 136 N.C.App. 430, 433-34 , 524 S.E.2d 378, 381 (the public duty doctrine barred claims against the city and its police officers who failed to adequately inspect a crime scene before allowing relatives of the victim to vis

2006App. 515, 518-20 , 459 S.E.2d 71, 73-74 (the public duty doctrine applied to bar a claim against the city, the city building inspector, and the city code administrator for gross negligence in an inspection of a home), disc. rev. denied, 342 N.C. 194 , 463 S.E.2d 242 (1995); Clark v. Red Bird Cab Co., 114 N.C.

2006Co., 122 N.C.App. 582 , 471 S.E.2d 102 (1996) (involving a city's failure to inform a construction company of potential tampering with equipment, resulting in the death of a police officer), modified and aff'd on other grounds, 345 N.C. 456, 460 , 480 S.E.2d 677, 680 (1997) ("We have some doubt as to the applicability of the public duty doctrine to the circumstances of this case."); Sinning v. Clark, 119 N.C.App. 515 , 459 S.E.2d 71 (involving negligent inspection of a home), disc. review denied, 342 N.C. 194 , 463 S.E.2d 242 (1995). [4] See Lassiter v. Cohn, 168 N.C.App. 310 , 607 S.E.2d 688