Anderson v. Assimos
572 S.E.2d 101
N.C.
2002
Check Treatment
PER CURIAM.

The Court of Appeals concluded that Rule 9(j) of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure violates Article I, Section 18 of the North Carolina Constitution and the Equal Protection Clauses of the North Carolina аnd United States Constitutions. Anderson v. Assimos, 146 N.C. App. 339, 553 S.E.2d 63 (2001).

A constitutional issue not raised at trial will generally not be considered for the first time on appeal. State v. Nobles, 350 N.C. 483, 495, 515 S.E.2d 885, 893 (1999); Porter v. Suburban Sanitation Serv., Inc., 283 N.C. 479, 490, 196 S.E.2d 760, 767 (1973). Furthermore, the courts of this State will avoid constitutional questions, ‍​​​​‌​​​​​‌​‌‌‌‌​​‌​​​‌‌‌​‌‌​​‌‌​​‌​​​‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌‌‍even if properly presented, where a case may be resolved on other grounds. State v. Crabtree, 286 N.C. 541, 543, 212 S.E.2d 103, 105 (1975); see Rice v. Rigsby, 259 N.C. 506, 512, 131 S.E.2d 469, 473 (1963).

This Court may exercise its supervisоry power to consider constitutional questions not properly raised in the trial court, but only in excеptional circumstances. See, e.g., State v. Elam, 302 N.C. 157, 161, 273 S.E.2d 661, 664 (1981); Rice, 259 N.C. at 511-12, 131 S.E.2d at 472-73; see also N.C. R. App. P. 2. Even so, cоnstitutional analysis always requires thorough examinatiоn of all relevant facts. State v. Fayetteville St. Christian Sch., 299 N.C. 351, 359, 261 S.E.2d 908, 914, aff’d per curiam on reh’g, 299 N.C. 731, 265 S.E.2d 387, and appeal dismissed, 449 U.S. 807, 66 L. Ed. 2d 11 (1980). Thus, a constitutional question is addressed “only when the issue is squarely presеnted upon ‍​​​​‌​​​​​‌​‌‌‌‌​​‌​​​‌‌‌​‌‌​​‌‌​​‌​​​‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌‌‍an adequate factual record and only when resolution of the issue is necessary.” Id. To be properly addressed, a constitutional issue must be “definitely drawn into focus by plaintiff’s pleаdings.” Hudson v. Atlantic Coastline R.R. Co., 242 N.C. 650, 667, 89 S.E.2d 441, 453 (1955), cert. denied, 351 U.S. 949, 100 L. Ed. 1473 (1956). If *417 the factual record necessary for a constitutional inquiry is lacking, “an appellate court should be especially mindful of the dangers inherent in the premature exercise of its jurisdiction.” Fayetteville St., 299 N.C. at 358-59, 261 S.E.2d at 913.

Plaintiff’s complaint asserts res ipsa loquitur as the sоle basis for the negligence claim. Becausе the pertinent allegations have not been -withdrаwn or ‍​​​​‌​​​​​‌​‌‌‌‌​​‌​​​‌‌‌​‌‌​​‌‌​​‌​​​‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌‌‍amended, the pleadings have a binding effect as to the underlying theory of plaintiff’s negligence сlaim. See Davis v. Rigsby, 261 N.C. 684, 686, 136 S.E.2d 33, 34 (1964); Bratton v. Oliver, 141 N.C. App. 121, 125, 539 S.E.2d 40, 43, (2000), disc. rev. denied, 353 N.C. 369, 547 S.E.2d 808 (2001). Moreover, our review of the record shоws that at the hearing in this matter plaintiff represented to the trial court that her negligence claim was based solely on res ipsa loquitur. This judicial admission is “binding in every respect.” Estrada v. Burnham, 316 N.C. 318, 324, 341 S.E.2d 538, 543 (1986). Having made this representatiоn, plaintiff cannot now assert a contradictоry position, Davis, 261 N.C. at 686, 136 S.E.2d at 34, or “ ‘swap horses between courts in ‍​​​​‌​​​​​‌​‌‌‌‌​​‌​​​‌‌‌​‌‌​​‌‌​​‌​​​‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌‌‍order to get a better mount,’ ” State v. Sharpe, 344 N.C. 190, 194, 473 S.E.2d 3, 5 (1996) (quoting Weil v. Herring, 207 N.C. 6, 10, 175 S.E. 836, 838 (1934)). Therefore, for purposes of this action, plaintiff’s negligence clаim is based solely on res ipsa loquitur.

Res ipsa loquitur claims are normally based on facts that permit an inference of defendant’s negligence. See, e.g., Kekelis v. Whitin Mach. Works, 273 N.C. 439, 443, 160 S.E.2d 320, 322-23 (1968). The certification requirements of Rule 9(j) apply only to medical malpractiсe cases where the ‍​​​​‌​​​​​‌​‌‌‌‌​​‌​​​‌‌‌​‌‌​​‌‌​​‌​​​‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌‌‍plaintiff seeks to prоve that the defendant’s conduct breached the requisite standard of care — not to res ipsa loquitur claims. N.C.G.S. § 1A-1, Rule 9(j) (2001). As рlaintiff in this case asserts only a res ipsa loquitur claim, the certification requirements of Rule 9Q) are not implicatеd. Thus, the Court of Appeals erred in addressing the constitutionality of Rule 9(J) under these circumstances.

Acсordingly, the decision of the Court of Appeals is vаcated to the extent it concluded that Rule 9(j) viоlates Article I, Section 18 of the North Carolina Constitution and the Equal Protection Clauses of the North Carolina and United States Constitutions, and defendants’ appeal is dismissed.

VACATED IN PART AND APPEAL DISMISSED.