B.C. v. Palmetto Wellness Grp. N.C.
24-335
| N.C. Ct. App. | Jun 4, 2025Background
- In 2017, Plaintiff M.B. was sexually assaulted during a massage by Bryant Whitehead at Massage Envy in Fayetteville, owned by Palmetto Wellness Group NC, LLC.
- Prior to this, Whitehead had assaulted another employee (Becca) at a different spa; despite being warned by Becca, Palmetto hired Whitehead.
- Whitehead assaulted at least two female clients at Massage Envy before his license was eventually revoked.
- M.B. sued Palmetto for negligence, negligent hiring, and related claims, and Whitehead for intentional torts (battery, IIED); Palmetto moved for directed verdict on some claims, and Whitehead defaulted.
- The jury found both defendants liable, but the court only instructed on joint and several liability for negligence claims—not for intentional torts—and the verdict apportioned damages accordingly.
- On appeal, M.B. challenged the failure to give a joint and several liability instruction for all damages and the denial of her Rule 59 motion to amend the judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jury instruction on joint and several liability | Palmetto and Whitehead should be jointly/severally liable for all indivisible damages, including those from intentional torts | Joint and several liability cannot apply to intentional torts without respondeat superior; limited to negligence | Trial court erred; instruction should have covered all damages, including intentional torts |
| Sufficiency of Plaintiff’s requested instruction | Plaintiff’s proposed instruction was correct law and supported by evidence | Not directly contested; focus on necessity/appropriateness of the instruction | Instruction was correct, supported by facts, and should have been given |
| Impact of respondeat superior claim dismissal | Dismissal doesn’t affect joint and several liability since Palmetto’s liability was based on its own negligence | Dismissal means no basis for joint/several liability for intentional torts | Dismissal irrelevant; joint/several applies based on own negligence contributing to indivisible injury |
| Rule 59 motion to amend judgment | Judgment must reflect joint/several liability for all damages, including intentional torts | Jury’s verdict stands; new trial unnecessary | Denial of motion affirmed; new trial on damages ordered due to instruction error |
Key Cases Cited
- Phillips v. Hassett Mining Co., 244 N.C. 17 (N.C. 1956) (joint and several liability for defendants whose acts produce an indivisible injury)
- Denny v. Coleman, 245 N.C. 90 (N.C. 1956) (plaintiff may sue joint tortfeasors jointly/severally when acts concur to produce single injury)
- Bowen v. Iowa Nat'l Mut. Ins. Co., 270 N.C. 486 (N.C. 1967) (difference between joint and several liability and respondeat superior)
- Casado v. Melas Corp., 69 N.C. App. 630 (N.C. Ct. App. 1984) (apportionment not required for indivisible injury)
- Ipock v. Gilmore, 73 N.C. App. 182 (N.C. Ct. App. 1985) (indivisible harm and joint liability)