Lynn v. Burnette
138 N.C. App. 435, 2000 N.C. App. LEXIS 618, 531 S.E. 2d 275 (2000)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In North Carolina, an act that constitutes an intentional tort, such as intentionally discharging a firearm, may also support a cause of action for negligence if the specific injury that resulted was not the actor's intended consequence.
Facts:
- Starnisha Burnette and Dwayne Pratt were in a romantic relationship.
- On July 13, 1993, Burnette and a friend followed Pratt and Demetrius Lynn to a motel, where they found Pratt and Lynn with two other women.
- After a confrontation, as Lynn was driving away from a nearby gas station, Burnette decided to shoot at the tire of Lynn's car.
- Burnette, who stated it was her first time firing a gun, discharged a handgun from her vehicle.
- While Burnette intended to hit the tire, the bullet struck Lynn in the neck, causing a serious injury.
Procedural Posture:
- In a separate criminal proceeding, Starnisha Burnette pled guilty to assault with a deadly weapon inflicting serious injury.
- Nearly three years after the incident, Demetrius Lynn filed a civil complaint against Burnette in state trial court, alleging negligence.
- Burnette filed a motion to dismiss, which the trial court treated as a motion for summary judgment, arguing the claim was for the intentional tort of battery and was barred by the one-year statute of limitations.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Burnette, dismissing Lynn's claim.
- Lynn, as appellant, appealed the summary judgment to the North Carolina Court of Appeals.
- Following a series of procedural steps including dismissals and a remand from the state Supreme Court, the case was returned to the Court of Appeals for reconsideration of the appeal.
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 defendant's intentional act of firing a handgun at a vehicle's tire, which results in unintentionally striking the driver, give rise to a cause of action for negligence that can be brought within the three-year statute of limitations, even though the one-year statute of limitations for the intentional tort of battery has expired?
Opinions:
Majority - McGee, Judge
Yes. An intentional act that causes an unintended injury can give rise to a claim for negligence. The court acknowledges a line of precedent holding that intentional torts and negligence are mutually exclusive legal theories. However, it relies on a conflicting line of North Carolina cases, such as Vernon v. Barrow, which established that a defendant's conduct in firing a gun could give rise to actions for both assault and battery and also for negligence. In this case, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, Burnette intended to shoot the tire but did not intend to shoot Lynn. Because the specific injury was not the intended result of her intentional act, the plaintiff may pursue a claim for negligence, which is governed by a three-year statute of limitations, rather than being confined to a battery claim, for which the one-year statute of limitations had already expired.
Analysis:
This decision significantly blurs the traditionally sharp line between intentional torts and negligence in North Carolina, particularly in cases involving firearms. It establishes that the same set of facts can support both theories of liability, granting plaintiffs crucial flexibility. This allows a plaintiff to plead around the shorter one-year statute of limitations for battery by framing the cause of action as negligence, so long as there is evidence the defendant did not intend the specific harmful result. The ruling creates a strategic advantage for plaintiffs but introduces uncertainty for defendants, as acts of intentional violence may be litigated years later under a negligence theory.
