Anderson v. Assimos

Nov 22, 2002
621A01
Versions:356 N.C. 415
572 S.E.2d 101
2002 N.C. LEXIS 1117
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, constitutionаl analysis always requires thorough examination of аll 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 presented uрon ‍​​​​‌​​​​​‌​‌‌‌‌​​‌​​​‌‌‌​‌‌​​‌‌​​‌​​​‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌‌‍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 pleadings.” 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 the fаctual 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 sole bаsis for the negligence claim. Because the рertinent allegations have not been -withdrawn or ‍​​​​‌​​​​​‌​‌‌‌‌​​‌​​​‌‌‌​‌‌​​‌‌​​‌​​​‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌‌‍аmended, the pleadings have a binding effect as to the underlying theory of plaintiff’s negligence claim. 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). Mоreover, our review of the record shows that аt 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 representation, plаintiff cannot now assert a contradictory pоsition, 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 claim is basеd 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 malpractice сases where the ‍​​​​‌​​​​​‌​‌‌‌‌​​‌​​​‌‌‌​‌‌​​‌‌​​‌​​​‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌‌‍plaintiff seeks to prove thаt 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 plaintiff in this casе asserts only a res ipsa loquitur claim, the certification requirements of Rule 9Q) are not implicated. Thus, the Court of Aрpeals erred in addressing the constitutionality of Rule 9(J) under these circumstances.

Accordingly, the deсision of the Court of Appeals is vacated tо the extent it concluded that Rule 9(j) violates Articlе 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.