Scadden v. Holt
222 N.C. App. 799
| N.C. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Scadden filed suit April 29, 2011 against Holt and the Town of Newport, alleging negligence related to a May 2, 2008 EMS scene.
- Plaintiff, a deputy sheriff, observed Holt and EMS personnel load a combative patient into an EMS vehicle and requested handcuffing to facilitate IV access.
- Plaintiff restrained the patient’s legs during the encounter and then felt a sharp back pain, allegedly from the patient’s movements.
- Plaintiff asserted Holt negligently failed to restrain the patient; Town's liability alleged under respondeat superior; an uninsured motorist claim was also raised.
- Trial court dismissed the complaint on Rule 12(b)(6) grounds for failure to state a claim under Rule 1A-1, and plaintiff appealed.
- On appeal, the issue is whether the complaint adequately alleges a legal duty owed by Holt to control the patient in a third-party tortfeasor context; the court affirms the dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is there a legally cognizable duty to control a third party in this context? | Scadden argues Holt owed a duty to control the patient. | Holt had no legal right to control the patient; no special relationship. | No duty; no special relationship established. |
| What standard governs duty to control a third party (special relationship test or foreseeability)? | Stein test applies; foreseeability and control imply a duty. | Stein standard governs; duties depend on special relationship and control/knowledge. | Stein standard applied; duty requires knowledge and ability to control, not mere foreseeability. |
| Was the trial court correct to grant Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal? | Complaint alleged a duty and breach. | No duty established; complaint insufficient. | Affirmed dismissal; no legal duty shown. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lambeth v. Media General, Inc., 167 N.C. App. 350, 605 S.E.2d 165 (2004) (tests for sufficiency of a Rule 12(b)(6) claim; liberal construction of complaints)
- Stein v. Asheville City Bd. Of Educ., 360 N.C. 321, 626 S.E.2d 263 (2006) (defines duty to third parties by special relationship and control/knowledge tests)
- King v. Durham County Mental Health Developmental Disabilities and Substance Abuse Authority, 113 N.C. App. 341, 439 S.E.2d 771 (1994) (recognizes various special relationships that create a duty to protect or control)
- Hedrick v. Rains, 121 N.C. App. 466, 466 S.E.2d 281 (1996) (discusses special relationships and duty to control or protect)
- Pangburn v. Saad, 73 N.C. App. 336, 326 S.E.2d 365 (1985) (illustrates custody/right to control as a factor in duty)
- Moore v. Crumpton, 55 N.C. App. 398, 285 S.E.2d 842 (1982) (discusses parental duty to control children)