Plum Props., LLC v. Holland
256 N.C. App. 500
| N.C. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Between November 5 and 21, 2010, four properties owned by Plum Properties, LLC were broken into and vandalized on three occasions.
- Perpetrators included minors Matej Selak and Jeremy Tucker, who lived with their mothers (Sabahetha Selak and Delisa L. Sparks) and admitted they had “snuck out” of the Sparks residence on the nights of the vandalism.
- Parents testified they had no prior knowledge their sons sneaked out at those times, kept reasonable rules/curfews, and were unaware their children would commit vandalism.
- Plaintiff sued for negligence, breach of parental/guardian duty to supervise, trespass, nuisance, parental strict liability for minors’ destruction, and punitive damages.
- The trial court granted partial summary judgment dismissing claims against the mothers for negligence, breach of duty to supervise, trespass to real and personal property, private nuisance, and punitive damages. The strict liability claim was tried separately and resulted in judgment for Plaintiff.
- On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed partial summary judgment, holding Plaintiff produced no admissible evidence creating a genuine issue that the parents knew or should have known of the necessity to exercise more control.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether parents can be held liable for negligent supervision for minors’ vandalism | Parents were negligent/failed to supervise; had duty to prevent sons’ misconduct | Parents lacked notice and opportunity to control; minors snuck out at night while parents slept | Affirmed for defendants — no genuine issue that parents knew or should have known and had opportunity to control |
| Whether testimony that boys had prior bad acts defeats summary judgment | Prior acts/customs show parents should have known risk | Prior-act statements by third party are hearsay and inadmissible; and even if true, they were insufficient to impute notice | Held hearsay inadmissible and, even if admissible, prior incidents insufficient to show parents should have known of vandalism risk |
| Whether evidence of prior marijuana use establishes foreseeability of vandalism | Plaintiff argued drug use indicated propensity for destructive conduct | Parents aware only of limited prior use; that alone does not make vandalism foreseeable | Held prior limited marijuana use did not create sufficient notice of future destructive acts |
| Whether summary judgment was appropriate when plaintiff failed to produce admissible evidence on essential elements | Plaintiff contended factual disputes existed | Defendants argued plaintiff produced no admissible evidence creating a prima facie case | Held summary judgment proper because plaintiff failed to produce admissible evidence raising genuine issues of material fact |
Key Cases Cited
- Moore v. Crumpton, 306 N.C. 618 (1982) (parent liable only if had ability/opportunity to control child and knew or should have known necessity to exercise such control)
- In re Will of Jones, 362 N.C. 569 (2008) (de novo standard of review for summary judgment on appeal)
- In re Estate of Redding v. Welborn, 170 N.C. App. 324 (2005) (summary judgment standard and burden shift discussion)
- Rankin v. Food Lion, 210 N.C. App. 213 (2011) (inadmissible hearsay cannot defeat summary judgment)