Braswell v. Braswell
410 S.E.2d 897, 1991 N.C. LEXIS 795, 330 N.C. 363 (1991)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the public duty doctrine, law enforcement is not liable for failing to protect specific individuals from harm unless a special duty is created through a specific promise of protection, reasonable reliance thereon, and a causal link between that reliance and the injury. Furthermore, an employer is generally not liable for negligent retention of an employee for violent acts committed off-duty, outside the workplace, and unrelated to their employment.
Facts:
- Lillie Braswell was the estranged wife of Deputy Sheriff Billy Braswell, who worked under the supervision of Sheriff Ralph Tyson.
- On September 22, 1982, Lillie moved out of her home and met with Sheriff Tyson, telling him she feared Billy would kill her and that he had said, 'if he could not have her, nobody could.'
- Lillie later found a letter written by Billy that clearly indicated a murder-suicide plan and informed Sheriff Tyson of its 'gist.'
- Lillie told friends that Sheriff Tyson had assured her Billy would not harm her and promised that 'he would see she got back and forth to work safely' and that his 'men would be keeping an eye on her.'
- Sheriff Tyson was aware that Billy had been violent towards Lillie in the past, including an incident years earlier where Billy put a gun to her head.
- On September 27, 1982, Billy Braswell intercepted and murdered Lillie while she was driving to her attorney's office during her workday.
- After killing Lillie, Billy returned home, where a sheriff's department vehicle was parked, and attempted suicide.
Procedural Posture:
- The administrator of Lillie Braswell's estate sued Sheriff Ralph Tyson in Superior Court (trial court) for negligent failure to protect and negligent supervision.
- At the close of the plaintiff's evidence at trial, the court granted a directed verdict in favor of Sheriff Tyson on both claims.
- The plaintiff appealed to the North Carolina Court of Appeals (intermediate appellate court).
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the directed verdict on the negligent supervision claim but reversed the directed verdict on the negligent failure to protect claim.
- One judge dissented from the affirmance of the negligent supervision claim's dismissal.
- The plaintiff appealed to the North Carolina Supreme Court based on the dissent, and the defendant, Sheriff Tyson, successfully petitioned for discretionary review of the reversal on the failure to protect claim.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a sheriff create a special duty to protect an individual from harm by a third party, thereby creating an exception to the public duty doctrine, by making general assurances of safety or a specific promise of protection that does not cover the time and place of the injury?
Opinions:
Majority - Meyer, Justice
No. A sheriff does not create a special duty to protect an individual from harm by a third party when the alleged promises of protection are either too general to create a specific duty or do not apply to the specific circumstances under which the injury occurred. This case formally adopts the public duty doctrine, which shields law enforcement from liability for failing to protect individual citizens. An exception exists for when a 'special duty' is created, which requires the plaintiff to show that: (1) an actual, specific promise of protection was made; (2) the promise was reasonably relied upon; and (3) this reliance was causally related to the injury suffered. Here, the Sheriff's general assurances were not specific promises. The only specific promise was to ensure Lillie's safety while commuting to and from work. Because Lillie was killed midday while on a personal errand to her lawyer's office, her death fell outside the scope of any specific promise, and thus the element of causation fails. The court also held the claim for negligent supervision and retention failed because Billy's violent act occurred off-duty, outside the workplace, and was related to a domestic dispute, not his employment. The court declined to hold the Sheriff liable merely because a department vehicle was at the employee's home after the crime.
Analysis:
This case is significant for formally adopting the public duty doctrine and its exceptions in North Carolina jurisprudence. It establishes a stringent, three-part test for the 'special duty' exception, making it difficult for plaintiffs to hold law enforcement liable for failure to protect. The decision emphasizes that a promise of protection must be specific and directly linked to the circumstances of the injury for liability to attach. It also reinforces a high bar for negligent supervision and retention claims, particularly for an employee's off-duty, off-premises conduct, thereby limiting an employer's liability for actions stemming from an employee's personal life.
Unlock the full brief for Braswell v. Braswell