Court Opinion

ID: 9624784
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 07:17:31.520865+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:08:27.444479
License: Public Domain

TYSON, Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I concur with parts I, IIB, IIC, III, and IV of the majority’s opinion. I respectfully dissent from part IIA for two reasons: (1) plaintiff presented no evidence that “the officers, directors, or managers” of B.H.B. Enterprises, Inc. participated in or condoned the battery committed against plaintiff or that (2) Radford Bennett, the manager of the restaurant, was an “officer, director, or manager” of B.H.B., Enterprises, Inc.
I. G.S. § ID-15
The majority’s opinion sets forth G.S. § 1D-I5(a) and (b) in their entirety. However, that opinion fails to set out subsection (c) which provides as follows:
(c) Punitive damages shall not be awarded against a person solely on the basis of vicarious liability for the acts or omissions of another. Punitive damages may be awarded against a person only if that person participated in the conduct constituting the aggravating factor giving rise to the punitive damages, or if. in the case of a corporation, the officers, directors, or managers of the *545corporation participated in or condoned the conduct constituting the aggravating factor giving rise to punitive damages.
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1D-I5(c) (2001) (emphasis supplied).
The language of G.S. § 1D-I5(c) is explicit and contextual. The majority’s opinion isolates the word “managers,” removes it from its contextual setting, and then defines the word “managers” using Webster’s Dictionary. This approach is inconsistent with established canons of statutory construction. The majority’s opinion states that “courts must accord [a] word [its] plain meaning and refrain from judicial construction.” This is a standard rule of construction, but not a complete statement of the rules.
“The words of a statute must be construed in accordance with their ordinary and common meaning unless they have acquired a technical meaning or unless a definite meaning is apparent or indicated by the context of the words.” Raleigh Place Assoc. v. City of Raleigh, Bd. of Adjustment, 95 N.C. App. 217, 219, 382 S.E.2d 441, 442 (1989) (citing State v. Lee, 277 N.C. 242, 176 S.E.2d 772 (1970) (emphasis supplied)). See also Ace-Hi, Inc. v. Department of Transp., 70 N.C. App. 214, 218, 319 S.E.2d 294, 297 (1984) (citing Lafayette Transp. Service, Inc. v. County of Robeson, 283 N.C. 494, 196 S.E.2d 770 (1973)); State v. Phipps, 112 N.C. App. 626, 629, 436 S.E.2d 280, 281 (1993). “Words and phrases of a statute ‘must be construed as a part of the composite whole and accorded only that meaning which other modifying provisions and the clear intent and purpose of the act will permit.’ ” Vogel v. Reed Supply Co., 277 N.C. 119, 131, 177 S.E.2d 273, 280 (1970) (quoting 7 Strong’s N.C. Index 2d, Statutes § 5; State v. Spencer, 276 N.C. 535, 173 S.E.2d 765 (1970) (other citations omitted)). Where words have a known technical meaning, that meaning must be adopted in construing a statute. Randall v. R.R., 104 N.C. 410, 413, 10 S.E. 691, 691 (1889). “A complimentary rule of construction provides that when technical terms or terms of art are used in a statute, they are presumed to be used with their technical meaning in mind, likewise absent legislative intent to the contrary.” Dare County Bd. of Educ. v. Sakaria, 127 N.C. App. 585, 588, 492 S.E.2d 369, 371-72 (1997) (citing Black v. Littlejohn, 312 N.C. 626, 639, 325 S.E.2d 469, 478 (1985)).
“Under the principle of ejusdem generis, when a general term follows a specific one, the general term should be understood as a reference to subjects akin to the one with specific enumeration.” Norfolk and Western R. Co. v. Train Dispatchers, 499 U.S. 117, 129, *546113 L. Ed. 2d 95, 107 (1991). “The maxim ejusdem, generis applies especially to the construction of legislative enactments. It is founded upon the obvious reason that if the legislative body had intended the general words to be used in their unrestricted sense the specific words would have been omitted.” Meyer v. Walls, 347 N.C. 97, 106, 489 S.E.2d 880, 885 (1997) (quotation omitted).
Here, the word “managers” has (1) a limited range of meanings utilizing the principle of ejusdem generis, (2) a technical meaning, and (3) a meaning apparent and indicated within the context of G.S. § 1D-I5(c). To define the word “managers” with one of its dictionary definitions broadens its scope of possible meanings beyond permissible boundaries as set forth in the statute.
The legislature placed the word “managers” directly after the words “officers” and “directors.” The word “managers” should be understood as a reference to subjects akin to “officers” and “directors.” A restaurant “manager” is not akin to an “officer” or “director” of a corporation. A restaurant manager oversees a physical location; a director or officer directs or supervises a corporation.
The word “managers” is also defined with a technical meaning in other portions of the North Carolina General Statutes. Corporations are owned by shareholders and managed by “directors” and “officers.” See North Carolina Business Corporation Act in Chapter 55 of the North Carolina General Statutes. Limited liability companies are owned by “members” and managed by “managers.” See North Carolina Limited Liability Company Act in Chapter 57C of the North Carolina General Statutes. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 57C-3-22 expressly defines the “Duties of managers.” The term “managers,” as technically defined in G.S. § 57C-3-22 does not resemble the dictionary definition that the majority ascribes to the word “managers.” In this context, the word “managers” is synonymous with the words “directors” and “officers” in the business entity setting.
The meaning of the word “managers” is also apparent and indicated by the context in which it is used in G.S. 1D-I5(c). Sentence number two of G.S. § 1D-I5(c) must be read in the context of sentence one. The first sentence of G.S. § 1D-I5(c) states that “Punitive damages shall not be awarded against a person solely on the basis of vicarious liability . . . .” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1D-I5(c). Restaurant managers are not “officers, directors or managers” of a corporation; they are employees of the corporation. The doctrine of respondeat superior provides that “the torts of an employee that occur in the course *547of employment are imputed to the employer.” David A. Logan & Wayne A. Logan, North Carolina Torts, § 10.30 at 233 (1996). The doctrine allows for vicarious liability.
Here, all of the corporate defendant’s liability is vicarious. Radford Bennett is an employee of the corporate defendant. B.H.B. Enterprises, Inc., defendant, is owned by Britton McCorkle (“McCorkle”). There is no evidence in the record that McCorkle was present at the restaurant on the evening of the incident. There is also no evidence that Bennett is an owner of B.H.B. Enterprises, Inc. All liability sustained by defendant was acquired through the actions of defendant’s employees. This is a classic example of vicarious liability. To ascribe to the majority’s definition of the word “managers” obliterates the meaning of the first sentence of G.S. § 1D-I5(c).
Plaintiff presented no evidence that McCorkle, or any other “director, officer, or manager of the corporation participated in or condoned the conduct constituting the aggravating factor,” or ordered, or ratified outrageous conduct on the part of any of the corporation’s employees.
The majority’s expansion of the meaning of “managers” beyond its statutory context violates long established rules of statutory construction. “I thought we had adopted a regular method for interpreting the meaning of language in a statute: first, find the ordinary meaning of the language in its textual context; and second, using established canons of construction, ask whether there is any clear indication that some permissible meaning other than the ordinary one applies.” Chisom v. Roemer, 501 U.S. 380, 404, 115 L. Ed. 2d 351, 369 (1991) (Scalia, J. dissenting) (citations omitted). “Today, however, the Court adopts a method quite out of accord with that usual practice. It begins not with what the statute says, but with an expectation about what the statute must mean .... As method, this is just backwards, and however much we may be attracted by the result it produces in a particular case, we should in every case resist it.” Id. at 405, 115 L. Ed. 2d at 369.
II. Corporate Complicity
North Carolina’s statute is neither unique nor dissimilar to other states. G.S. § 1D-I5(c) is a codification of what other states term the “corporate complicity” rule, which requires express and explicit condoning of the act by a corporate defendant in order to be vicariously liable for punitive damages.
*548Other jurisdictions have enacted similar statutes limiting punitive damages for vicarious liability. While no other state has an identical provision, some other statutes are illustrative of the limiting purposes behind our N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1D-I5(c).
Kansas has adopted a statute similar to North Carolina. In K.S.A. § 60-3701(d), the legislature provided that: “In no case shall exemplary or punitive damages be assessed pursuant to this section against: (1) a principal or employer for the acts of an agent or employee unless the questioned conduct was authorized or ratified by a person expressly empowered to do so on behalf of the principal or employer.” K.S.A. § 60-3701(d). “K.S.A. § 60-3701(d)(l) limits punitive damages assessed to an employer only in circumstances where the employer has ratified or authorized the act of the employee .... [T]he policy of Kansas regarding assessment of punitive damages against a corporation is that such damages may be assessed in accord with the complicity rule but not upon a vicarious liability rule.” Hartford Accident & Indem. Co. v. American Red Ball Transit Co., Inc., 938 P.2d 1281, 1292 (Kan. 1997).
In Illinois, “[t]he corporate-complicity rule allows for the imposition of punitive damages against a corporation if a superior officer of the corporation ordered, participated in, or ratified outrageous conduct on the part of an employee.” Hargan v. Southwestern Elec. Co-op., Inc., 725 N.E.2d 807, 810-11 (Ill. App. 2000) (citing Kemner v. Monsanto Co., 576 N.E.2d 1146, 1157 (1991) (emphasis supplied)).
The State of Idaho also follows the corporate complicity rule. “A corporation is liable for punitive damages based upon the acts of its agents if the directors and managing officers participated in, or authorized or ratified, the agents’ acts.” Student Loan Fund of Idaho, Inc. v. Duerner, 951 P.2d 1272, 1280 (Idaho. 1997) (emphasis supplied).
In North Carolina the General Assembly has spoken. G.S. § 1D-I5(c) is clear and explicit. I concur with the majority’s holding that defendant is vicariously liable in negligence for the actions of its employees. However, in the total absence of any evidence that “officers, directors, or managers of [defendant] corporation participated in or condoned the conduct. . . ,” I respectfully dissent from that portion of the majority’s opinion that affirms the trial court’s award of punitive damages against the corporate defendant based solely on vicarious liability. I would vacate that portion of the judgment awarding plaintiff punitive damages. I respectfully dissent.