Court Opinion

ID: 9578817
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:48:41.289788+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:33:30.446235
License: Public Domain

Judge Greene
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I agree with the majority that the trial court correctly granted summary judgment for the County on the basis of sovereign immunity and found no liability as to defendant Blalock. I disagree, however, that the trial court erred in denying summary judgment as to defendant Barriger and would therefore affirm the trial court’s decision in its entirety.
Although Barriger, as a public official performing governmental duties involving the exercise of judgment and discretion, is “immune from liability for ‘mere negligence’ in the performance of those duties,” he is “not shielded from liability if his alleged actions were ‘corrupt or malicious’ or if ‘he acted outside of and beyond the scope of his duties’.” Wiggins v. City of Monroe, 73 N.C. App. 44, 49, 326 S.E.2d 39, 43 (1985) (citations omitted), appeal after remand, 85 N.C. App. 237, 354 S.E.2d 365, cert. denied, 320 N.C. 178, 358 S.E.2d 72 (1987). If a plaintiff alleges that a public official is corrupt, malicious, or acted beyond the scope of his duties, the plaintiff is necessarily suing the public official in his individual capacity. See Taylor v. Ashburn, 112 N.C. App. 604, 607-08, 436 S.E.2d 276, 279 (1993) (if plain*205tiff falls to advance any allegations in his or her complaint other than those relating to a defendant’s official duties, the complaint does not state a claim against a defendant in his or her individual capacity, and instead, is treated as a claim against defendant in his official capacity”), cert. denied, 336 N.C. 77, 445 S.E.2d 46 (1994); 57 Am. Jur. 2d Municipal, County, School, and State Tort Liability § 70 (1988) (State entities, agents, and employees share immunity where claim involves activities which may be attributed to the State unless there are allegations that state agent or employee acted beyond scope of authority through wrongful acts).
In this case, plaintiff alleged in his complaint that “[i]n issuing the improvement permits as alleged above with fabricated soils data and other false statements, defendant Barriger acted wantonly and maliciously to protect his own interests in reckless disregard of the consequences to plaintiff should the permits so issued be revoked.” Plaintiff supports his allegation by stating that Barriger
out of concern that his own negligent misrepresentations . . . might subject him to damages liability. . . fabricated soils depths for the lots that, at least in his mind, allowed him to issue permits without requiring the areal fill mandated by Section .1950(b). ... In a further effort to present a facade of compliance with Section .1949(c) of the State Rules and for the express purpose of concealing his past malfeasance, defendant Barriger included among the “specifications and requirements” attached to the permits issued for lots 2, 3, 5, 8, 9, and 10 (all of which required PPB systems) that such systems were being used “at the request of the project engineer Mr. Wallace Davis.” In fact, unbeknownst to plaintiff but well known to defendant Barriger, Mr. Davis had never made any such request since he was utterly unfamiliar with the workings of PPB systems.
Plaintiff has alleged that Barriger fabricated soil depths and attempted to conceal “his past malfeasance,” actions not relating to Barriger’s official duties as a sanitarian. Thus, plaintiff, by advancing allegations in his complaint other than those relating to his official duties, is suing Barriger in his individual capacity, and Barriger is “not shielded from liability if his alleged actions were ‘corrupt or malicious’ or if ‘he acted outside of and beyond the scope of his duties’.” Because Barriger, by basing his summary judgment motion on sovereign immunity, has failed to meet his burden of establishing that there is no genuine issue of material fact, the trial court correctly denied Barriger’s motion for summary judgment.