Bridges v. Parrish
731 S.E.2d 262
N.C. Ct. App.2012Background
- Plaintiff alleges Bernie Parrish, 52, son of defendants, lived in defendants' building they owned/controlled; Bernie had a history of crimes and violence toward women and defendants were aware.
- Plaintiff and Bernie began a relationship in April 2010; defendants knew of the relationship and did not inform plaintiff of Bernie’s violent history.
- Starting around 2000, defendants allegedly provided Bernie lodging, financial assistance, guidance, and advice; Bernie was charged in 2007 with kidnapping, assault with a deadly weapon, and firearm possession; defendants aware but did not disclose.
- Plaintiff ended the relationship in November 2010 after Bernie’s controlling behavior; Barbara assured plaintiff Bernie was not a threat; neither defendant disclosed Bernie’s violent history.
- In January 2011 plaintiff agreed to see Bernie again; on March 8, 2011 Bernie used defendants’ handgun and truck to shoot plaintiff, causing serious injury; plaintiff filed suit September 1, 2011; motion to dismiss granted November 3, 2011; appeal filed December 2, 2011.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a duty existed based on an active course of conduct | Brady argues defendants’ actions created a foreseeable risk | No duty arises from defendants’ conduct without foreseeability | No duty; dismissal affirmed |
| Whether negligent storage of firearms imposes a duty | Defendants owed duty to secure firearms from Bernie | NC courts have not recognized such a duty under these facts | No duty recognized; negligent storage claim not upheld |
| Whether negligent entrustment of handgun/truck existed | Defendants entrusted Bernie with firearms and vehicle | No consent or entrustment shown; entrustment not proven; claim waived for the truck | No entrustment duty; claim not established; truck theory waived |
Key Cases Cited
- Winters v. Lee, 115 N.C. App. 692, 446 S.E.2d 123 (N.C. App. 1994) (foreseeability governs duty; not all harms are foreseeable)
- Mabrey v. Smith, 144 N.C. App. 119, 548 S.E.2d 183 (N.C. App. 2001) (elements of negligence require duty, breach, causation, injury)
- Sterner v. Penn, 159 N.C. App. 626, 583 S.E.2d 670 (N.C. App. 2003) (negligence elements and duty analysis guidance)
- Davis v. N.C. Dep’t of Human Res., 121 N.C. App. 105, 465 S.E.2d 2 (N.C. App. 1995) (duty requires protection from unreasonable risks)
- Al-Hourani v. Ashley, 126 N.C. App. 519, 485 S.E.2d 887 (N.C. App. 1997) (test for legal sufficiency on motion to dismiss)
- Swicegood v. Cooper, 341 N.C. 178, 459 S.E.2d 206 (N.C. 1995) (negligent entrustment typically applies to vehicles; consent required)
- Hill v. West, 189 N.C. App. 189, 657 S.E.2d 694 (N.C. App. 2008) (entrustment requires consent to use the instrumentality)
- Tart v. Martin, 353 N.C. 252, 540 S.E.2d 332 (N.C. 2000) (entrustment analysis; consent element clarified)
- Belk v. Boyce, 263 N.C. 24, 138 S.E.2d 789 (N.C. 1964) (high duty of care for firearm use; distinguishes storage)