George v. Greyhound Lines, Inc.
210 N.C. App. 388
N.C. Ct. App.2011Background
- This NC Court of Appeals action arises from an RV–bus rear-end collision injuring plaintiffs in 2003.
- Defendants moved to bifurcate punitive damages from compensatory damages; partial summary judgment on punitive damages granted in 2009.
- Jury verdict on compensatory damages issued January 2009; Canfield appealed but interlocutory dismissal occurred in 2009.
- Judgment entered January 2010; Canfield appeals the partial summary judgment and the resulting judgment.
- The trial court held Canfield failed to forecast clear and convincing evidence of willful or wanton conduct; punitive damages claim against Ford and Greyhound were dismissed.
- Court affirms the trial court’s order and judgment, rejecting Canfield’s punitive damages appeal based on the record and law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Canfield’s punitive damages appeal was properly preserved. | Canfield preserved appeal after partial summary judgment. | Section 1D-30 structure requires remand for a new trial if punitive damages are pursued with compensatory claims. | Appeal denied to be dismissed for preservation; remand not required. |
| Whether the trial court applied the correct legal standard for punitive damages at summary judgment. | Trial court correctly required clear and convincing evidence of willful/wanton conduct. | Court misapplied burden or standard. | Court did not err; standard properly applied. |
| Whether there were genuine issues of material fact on willful or wanton conduct by Ford/Greyhound. | Evidence shows fatigue/awakeness and conscious disregard. | No forecast of evidence showing deliberate purpose or reckless indifference. | Summary judgment in favor of Ford and Greyhound affirmed. |
| Whether Ford’s driving fatigue constitutes willful or wanton misconduct per 49 C.F.R. 392.3. | Regulation violation supports punitive damages. | Violation alone not enough without deliberate purpose; evidence insufficient. | Regulation violation alone insufficient; punitive damages not supported. |
| Whether Greyhound may be liable vicariously for Ford's conduct. | Greyhound condoned/participated in willful conduct. | Insufficient evidence of Greyhound’s participation. | No punitive damages against Greyhound; no basis for vicarious liability. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lashlee v. White Consolidated Indus., Inc., 144 N.C.App. 684, 548 S.E.2d 821 (N.C. App. 2001) (willful/wanton conduct defined; safety duties standard)
- Marsh v. Trotman, 96 N.C.App. 578, 386 S.E.2d 447 (N.C. App. 1989) (punitive damages for willful and wanton operation of a motor vehicle; standard)
- Builders Mut. Ins. Co. v. N. Main Constr., Ltd., 361 N.C. 85, 637 S.E.2d 528 (N.C. 2006) (summary judgment standard; forecast of evidence; prima facie case)
- Lindsey v. Boddie-Noell Enters., 147 N.C.App. 166, 555 S.E.2d 369 (N.C. App. 2001) (remand on appeal when punitive damages party appeals after partial judgments)