235 N.C. App. 406
N.C. Ct. App.2014Background
- On Dec. 30, 2009, Wayne County deputy Daniel Truhan (Plaintiff) responded to a non‑injury, two‑vehicle accident to provide traffic control; shortly after he set out, he collided with Susan Walston (Defendant) as she turned onto Highway 117.
- Truhan activated blue lights but (per the record viewed in Walston’s favor) did not use his siren, reached speeds exceeding 100 mph on a stretch with a 45 mph limit, and was traveling ~95 mph at impact; collision analysts said the crash would not have occurred at ≤74 mph.
- Walston stopped at the stop sign, checked for traffic, pulled forward to see, and began a left turn; she saw blue lights only moments before impact.
- Truhan was a warrant officer with limited emergency driving training; department policy required lights and siren for emergency response and driving with due regard for public safety.
- Walston asserted counterclaims and a third‑party complaint against Truhan and his insurers (Western Surety, Farm Bureau, United Services); the trial court granted summary judgment for Truhan and the insurers; Walston appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Truhan’s conduct amounted to gross negligence under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 20‑145 | Truhan argued his response was an emergency response covered by §20‑145 and not grossly negligent | Walston argued Truhan’s extreme speed, lack of siren, failure to notify dispatch, and disregard of policy created a genuine issue of gross negligence | Reversed: material factual issues existed on gross negligence; summary judgment improper and case remanded |
| Whether governmental immunity barred Walston’s claims against Truhan | Truhan argued governmental immunity applied | Walston argued §20‑145 claims fall outside governmental immunity and sheriff’s bond waived immunity | Held: governmental immunity did not bar §20‑145 gross negligence claim; sheriff’s bond also waived immunity for at least policy limits |
| Whether summary judgment was appropriate against insurers/third‑party defendants | Insurers argued no liability as a matter of law | Walston contended disputed facts raise liability questions tied to Truhan’s conduct | Summary judgment for third‑party defendants reversed as to claims tied to Truhan’s alleged gross negligence (remanded) |
| Whether authorities and policies supported a finding of gross negligence | Truhan relied on need to respond and some use of lights | Walston pointed to policy violations, expert and investigator opinions, extreme speed, and risk factors (time, location, traffic) | Court found the aggregate facts (viewed for Walston) comparable to precedent where gross negligence was a jury issue; remanded |
Key Cases Cited
- Jones v. City of Durham, 168 N.C. App. 433 (N.C. Ct. App.) (discusses gross negligence standard for officer driving and factors to consider in high‑speed responses)
- Jones v. City of Durham, 361 N.C. 144 (N.C.) (Supreme Court decision addressing gross negligence analysis in officer response cases)
- Young v. Woodall, 119 N.C. App. 132 (N.C. Ct. App.) (explains that claims under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 20‑145 are not barred by governmental immunity)
- Young v. Woodall, 343 N.C. 459 (N.C.) (Supreme Court review applying gross negligence standard under § 20‑145)
- Greene v. City of Greenville, 736 S.E.2d 833 (N.C. Ct. App.) (articulates factors for evaluating officer gross negligence in vehicular pursuits and emergency responses)