Graham v. Lambert

898 S.E.2d 888

ESTATE OF Gregory GRAHAM

v.Ashton LAMBERT, individual and official capacity, Fayetteville Police Department, and City of Fayetteville

No. 113A22

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Filed March 22, 2024

On discretionary review pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-31 and on appeal pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-30(2) from the decision of a divided panel of the Court of Appeals, 282 N.C. App. 269, 871 S.E.2d 382 (2022), reversing an order denying summary judgment entered on 16 July 2020 by Judge Mary Ann Tally in Superior Court, Cumberland County. Heard in the Supreme Court on 31 October 2023.

Law Offices of Antonio F. Gerald, by Kevin Vidunas; and O’Malley Tunstall, PLLC, by Joseph P. Tunstall III, Raleigh, and Peter J. Tomasek, for plaintiff-appellants.

Cranfill Sumner LLP, Steven A. Bader and James C. Thornton, Raleigh, for defendants-appellees.

Roberts & Stevens, PA, by David C. Hawisher, for North Carolina Association of Defense Attorneys, amicus curiae.

Tin Fulton Walker & Owen, PLLC, by Abraham Rubert-Schewel, for North Carolina Advocates for Justice, amicus curiae.

EARLS, Justice.

Just before midnight on 24 July 2018, Officer Ashton Lambert struck Gregory Graham with his police cruiser while responding to a call. Mr. Graham died at the scene. After the collision, Mr. Graham’s Estate sued Officer Lambert in his official and individual capacities, alleging negligence, gross negligence, and wrongful death. The Estate brought the same claims against the officer’s employers— the City of Fayetteville (City) and the Fayetteville Police Department (Police Department). The Police Department was dismissed as an improper party. Before trial, the City and Officer Lambert moved for summary judgment, arguing that governmental and public officer immunity barred the Estate’s claims. The trial court denied their motions; the Court of Appeals reversed. Est. of Graham. v. Lambert, 282 N.C. App. 269, 271, 871 S.E.2d 882 (2022).

In reaching its conclusion, the Court of Appeals improperly analyzed the summary judgment order before it. To examine whether the City waived governmental immunity by buying liability insurance, the court focused on the sufficiency of the Estate’s complaint, rather than the presence of a genuine factual dispute. Id. at 273–74, 871 S.E.2d 382. Put differently, the court imported the Rule 12(b)(6) standard into the realm of summary judgment. See N.C.G.S. § 1A-1, Rule 12(b)(6) (2023).

That misguided analysis yielded a misguided result as to immunity. By statute, the City’s insurance coverage dictates whether it has waived governmental immunity on the Estate’s claim. See N.C.G.S. § 160A-485 (2023). The same is true for the official capacity suit against Officer Lambert, as that claim is—in effect—one against the City. We thus reverse the Court of Appeals as to the City’s waiver of immunity and remand for it to analyze "whether, on the basis of materials supplied to the trial court, there was a genuine issue of material fact" on that point. See Summey v. Barker, 357 N.C. 492, 496, 586 S.E.2d 247 (2003).

We also clarify the legal framework for suits to which N.C.G.S. § 20-145 (2023) applies. That statute exempts police officers from speed limits when chasing or apprehending criminal absconders. Id. But it does not shield officers for their gross negligence. See Young v. Woodall, 343 N.C. 459, 462, 471 S.E.2d 357 (1996). The Estate contends—and the Court of Appeals assumed—that section 20-145 exposes the City to liability for Officer Lambert’s conduct. In other words, that the statute waived governmental immunity. But because section 20-145 focuses on individual drivers and individual responsibility, it sets "gross negligence" as the metric for personal liability in personal capacity claims. There is no basis in the statute’s plain language, however, to conclude that it also waives the City’s immunity.

The dissenting Court of Appeals judge would have denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the gross negligence claim. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Estate, the dissenting judge found a genuine issue of material fact on the question of whether Officer Lambert was grossly negligent. See Est. of Graham, 282 N.C. App. at 278–83, 871 S.E.2d 382 (Jackson, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). Neither the majority nor the dissent below clarify whether they were analyzing the gross negligence claim as it applied to the individual capacity claims or the official capacity claims or both. At oral argument in this Court, the Estate’s Counsel represented that the only claim on appeal is the claim against the City based on its alleged waiver of governmental immunity by securing insurance. Because the Estate does not appeal it, we do not reach the question of whether the evidence taken in the light most favorable to the Estate raises a genuine issue of material fact on Officer Lambert’s gross negligence as it relates to the individual capacity claim.

I. Background

A. The Accident

On 24 July 2018, Officer Lambert was on-duty as an officer with the City of Fayetteville Police Department. It was his first night shift. In fact, it was his first solo shift since joining the force the October before.

At 11:53 PM, Officer Lambert was one of three officers dispatched to a domestic disturbance. Of the officers, Officer Lambert was the farthest away and was thus providing backup. In his own words, he was "responding to a call for service," not "an emergency."

When he received the call, Officer Lambert was driving his police cruiser on Raeford Road—a flat multi-lane straightaway with no curves. He was traveling west in the middle lane. That night, the traffic was light, the weather clear, and the road well-lit by street-lights and nearby businesses. After receiving the call, Officer Lambert used the laptop in the front seat of his cruiser to find the address. He continued touching the computer’s track pad as he drove.

At the same time, Gregory Graham was crossing Raeford Road on foot. Earlier that day, Mr. Graham was admitted to Roxie Care Center for suicidal ideations. At one point, he voiced thoughts of "throwing himself into traffic." Mr. Graham received medical treatment and was released later that same day. As he traversed Raeford Road that evening, Mr. Graham’s blood alcohol content was 0.31.

There was no pedestrian crosswalk on that portion of the street, but camera footage showed that it was well lit by the floodlights of a car dealership. The same footage captured Mr. Graham crossing three eastbound lanes and stopping on the median. He looked both ways, and then started across the westbound lanes.

Raeford Road has a speed limit of 45 miles per hour. Officer Lambert, however, drove faster, at one point reaching 58 miles per hour. His cruiser’s blue lights were off and its emergency siren quiet. As he drove, Officer Lambert periodically looked at and touched his laptop. And in the moments before the crash, his cruiser twice strayed outside of its lane. Three seconds before impact, Officer Lambert shifted positions and leaned towards his laptop.

At 11:53 PM, Officer Lambert struck Mr. Graham head-on. He was driving 53 miles per hour, and his body camera footage did not capture any obvious efforts to brake or swerve. There were no skid marks on the road. After colliding with Mr. Graham, Officer Lambert pulled over, activated his blue lights, and alerted dispatch. Mr. Graham died at the scene.

B. The Lawsuit

On 13 June 2019, almost a year after Mr. Graham’s death, his Estate sued the Police Department, the City, and Officer Lambert in his individual and official capacities. The Estate alleged wrongful death, negligence, and gross negligence. On the latter claim, the Estate invoked N.C.G.S. § 20-145, arguing that Officer Lambert’s driving was grossly negligent and above the posted speed limits.

On 19 August 2019, defendants answered the Estate’s complaint. They moved to dismiss the Police Department as an improper party. They raised defenses of governmental and public officer immunity. And they moved to dismiss the Estate’s complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to state a claim. In defendants’ view, the Estate did not specifically allege that the City waived governmental immunity by buying liability insurance.

In March 2020, defendants moved for summary judgment. Officer Lambert and the City reasserted their immunity defenses and argued that "no evidence" showed that the officer "acted in a … grossly negligent manner." The Police Department contended that, as a subunit of the City, it was not a proper party to the suit.

The trial court agreed with the Police Department and dismissed the Estate’s claims against it with prejudice. But it denied summary judgment for Officer Lambert and the City, concluding that "genuine issues of material fact" remained. Officer Lambert and the City appealed the trial court’s summary judgment ruling.

C. The Appeal

A divided panel of the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s summary judgment ruling and granted summary judgment to the City and Officer Lambert. Est. of Graham, 282 N.C. App. at 278, 871 S.E.2d 382. The court first held that the Estate sufficiently plead a waiver of governmental immunity. Id. at 274, 871 S.E.2d 382. Under N.C.G.S. § 160A-485, cities may waive their immunity from tort claims by buying liability insurance, According to the Court of Appeals, the Estate’s complaint was "sufficient to give notice to defendants that plaintiff is alleging a waiver of immunity because it states the action is brought and that defendants are liable pursuant to § 160A-485." Id. Since the Estate adequately plead waiver, the court reasoned that "governmental immunity was waived." Id.

[1] Next, the Court of Appeals examined the individual capacity suit against Officer Lambert. Though governmental immunity attaches to governments and their employees when sued in their official capacities, public officer...