Opinion ID: 1027858
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Claims Failing as a Matter of Law

Text: Both the punitive damages and negligent supervision claims fail as a matter of state law. Punitive damages are not a cause of action, Hawkins v. Hawkins, 101 N.C.App. 529, 400 S.E.2d 472, 474 (1991), and Cloaninger has not presented facts sufficient to support each of the elements necessary to establish negligent supervision. To prevail on a claim for negligent supervision in North Carolina, a plaintiff must prove: (1) the specific negligent act on which the action is founded ... (2) incompetency, by inherent unfitness or previous specific acts of negligence, from which incompetency may be inferred; and (3) either actual notice to the [employer] of such unfitness or bad habits, or constructive notice, by showing that the [employer] could have known the facts had he used ordinary care in oversight and supervision, ...; and (4) that the injury complained of resulted from the incompetency proved. Medlin v. Bass, 327 N.C. 587, 398 S.E.2d 460, 462 (1990) (quoting Walters v. Lumber Co., 163 N.C. 536, 80 S.E. 49, 51 (1913)) (internal quotation marks and emphasis omitted). In order to prove the third element, notice, the plaintiff must prove ... that prior to the [employee's tortious] act, the employer knew or had reason to know of the employee's incompetency. Barker v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 136 N.C.App. 455, 524 S.E.2d 821, 827 (2000) (internal quotation marks omitted). Cloaninger does not allege any basis upon which McDevitt would know or have reason to know Parlier and Lo were incompetent because the only acts of Parlier and Lo alleged in the complaint are those which occurred on March 9 and 10, 2005. McDevitt, as the employer, obviously could not have prior notice of his employees' incompetence on the basis of a present act, even if that act is incompetent as alleged. Accordingly, Cloaninger has failed to allege or present any evidence which could establish the required element of notice for a claim of negligent supervision. His claim therefore fails as a matter of law. In summary, all of Cloaninger's state law claims fail either because they have abated, are abandoned, or cannot be sustained as a matter of law.