Wilkerson v. Duke University
229 N.C. App. 670
N.C. Ct. App.2013Background
- On July 15, 2008, Brian Wilkerson (plaintiff), a valet attendant at Duke University Hospital, refused to open a gated lot; Officer Christopher Day (Day) then attempted to obtain plaintiff’s identification, leading to a physical confrontation and a trespass notice that cost plaintiff his job.
- Plaintiff sued Day and Duke University asserting false imprisonment, assault, battery, negligent supervision/retention, negligence, public stigmatization, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, and North Carolina constitutional violations; he sought compensatory and punitive damages.
- Defendants moved to dismiss and later for summary judgment; plaintiff sought to amend his complaint 13 months after filing and five days before the summary judgment hearing to add claims for tortious interference and unfair/deceptive trade practices.
- The trial court denied the amendment and granted summary judgment dismissing all claims (order did not state prejudice).
- On appeal, the court reviewed summary judgment de novo and treated plaintiff’s verified complaint as an affidavit where appropriate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| False imprisonment (against Day) | Day unlawfully and physically detained Wilkerson | Any restraint was a lawful investigatory stop justified by suspicion | Reversed — genuine fact issues exist about whether restraint occurred and was unlawful |
| Assault & Battery (against Day) | Day’s contact and grabbing created reasonable apprehension and offensive touching | Contact was defensive/limited and not tortious | Reversed — disputed facts on apprehension and offensive contact |
| Intentional & negligent infliction of emotional distress | Conduct caused severe emotional distress | No evidence of severe, diagnosable emotional harm | Affirmed — no forecast of severe emotional distress in record |
| State constitutional claims | Constitutional rights abridged by Day’s conduct | State tort remedies are adequate so constitutional claim improper | Affirmed — state law provides adequate remedy; constitutional claims dismissed |
| Respondeat superior and negligent retention (against Duke) | Duke is vicariously liable for Day’s alleged torts; employer knew or should have known of Day’s incompetence | Duke argued no tortious conduct or insufficient notice of incompetence | Reversed in part — vicarious liability and negligent supervision/retention present genuine fact issues |
| Motion to amend complaint | Amendment should be allowed to add tortious interference and UDTP claims | Amendment was unduly delayed, prejudicial, and amendments would be futile | Affirmed — trial court did not abuse discretion denying amendment (undue delay, prejudice, futility) |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Will of Jones, 362 N.C. 569 (standard of review for summary judgment)
- Black v. Clark’s Greensboro, Inc., 263 N.C. 226 (definition and elements of false imprisonment)
- State v. Jones, 304 N.C. 323 (reasonable-suspicion standard for investigatory stops)
- Dickens v. Puryear, 302 N.C. 437 (elements of intentional infliction of emotional distress)
- Johnson v. Ruark Obstetrics & Gynecology Assocs., P.A., 327 N.C. 283 (standard for negligent infliction of emotional distress; definition of severe emotional distress)
- Corum v. Univ. of N.C., 330 N.C. 761 (when state constitutional claims are available versus when state remedies are adequate)
- Calloway v. Ford Motor Co., 281 N.C. 496 (standards governing denial of motions to amend)