Court Opinion

ID: 9586606
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 23:13:16.851333+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:32:45.271945
License: Public Domain

Judge COZORT
concurring.
I write only to emphasize that this opinion does not either establish new law or create a new cause of action. As Judge Phillips pointed out, Coleman v. Cooper, 89 N.C. App. 188, 366 S.E.2d 2, disc. review denied, 322 N.C. 834, 371 S.E.2d 275 (1988), stands for the proposition that liability arises when a law enforcement officer creates a special duty to an individual by promising protection to that individual, the protection is not forthcoming, and the individual’s reliance on the promise of protection is causally related to the injury suffered. Id. at 194, 366 S.E.2d at 6. This panel is bound by the holding in Coleman. In Re Harris, 324 N.C. 373, 384, 379 S.E.2d 30, 37 (1989). Our task in the case below is to apply the principles enunciated in Coleman to the evidence presented at trial. Our review of the evidence reveals that, contrary to the facts in Coleman, plaintiff produced some evidence of each essential element, i.e., the promise of protection, the lack of protection, and a causal relation between the reliance and the injury. The inconsistencies in the plaintiff’s evidence and the defendant’s evidence *239to the contrary present questions for the jury to resolve. Thus, plaintiff is entitled to a new trial on this theory alone.