{
  "id": 11890115,
  "name": "DORIS HUMPHRIES, Administrator of the Estate of STACEY HUMPHRIES, Deceased; and TYRONE HUMPHRIES, Plaintiffs v. NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, Defendant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Humphries v. North Carolina Department of Correction",
  "decision_date": "1996-11-19",
  "docket_number": "No. COA96-224",
  "first_page": "545",
  "last_page": "548",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "124 N.C. App. 545"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.",
    "id": 14983,
    "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "44 ALR3d 899",
      "category": "reporters:specialty",
      "reporter": "A.L.R. 3d",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "447 S.E.2d 387",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1994,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "336 N.C. 603",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2534058,
        2535023,
        2535157,
        2538871,
        2539514
      ],
      "year": 1994,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/336/0603-05",
        "/nc/336/0603-04",
        "/nc/336/0603-02",
        "/nc/336/0603-03",
        "/nc/336/0603-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "442 S.E.2d 75",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1994,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "78"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "114 N.C. App. 400",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8527625
      ],
      "year": 1994,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "404"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/114/0400-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "463 S.E.2d 242",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1995,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "citations omitted"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "342 N.C. 194",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        796110,
        795921,
        796084,
        796057,
        795899
      ],
      "year": 1995,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "citations omitted"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/342/0194-04",
        "/nc/342/0194-05",
        "/nc/342/0194-01",
        "/nc/342/0194-03",
        "/nc/342/0194-02"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "459 S.E.2d 71",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1995,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "74",
          "parenthetical": "citations omitted"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "119 N.C. App. 515",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        11916250
      ],
      "year": 1995,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "519",
          "parenthetical": "citations omitted"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/119/0515-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "410 S.E.2d 897",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1991,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "902"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "330 N.C. 363",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2509910
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1991,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "371"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/330/0363-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "472 S.E.2d 8",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1996,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "343 N.C. 511",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        798948,
        798892,
        798895,
        798898,
        798772
      ],
      "year": 1996,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/343/0511-02",
        "/nc/343/0511-04",
        "/nc/343/0511-01",
        "/nc/343/0511-03",
        "/nc/343/0511-05"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "466 S.E.2d 281",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 1996,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "283"
        },
        {
          "page": "284"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "121 N.C. App. 466",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        11917864
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1996,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "470"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/121/0466-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 372,
    "char_count": 6255,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.695,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.936828577700289e-07,
      "percentile": 0.934608735876107
    },
    "sha256": "05ba0e1ffa483527e49bec2f693203715f447a08fb4db3e44d96c4d050d66cfc",
    "simhash": "1:170cd4496538a65e",
    "word_count": 997
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:03:33.335576+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges JOHN and McGEE concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "DORIS HUMPHRIES, Administrator of the Estate of STACEY HUMPHRIES, Deceased; and TYRONE HUMPHRIES, Plaintiffs v. NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, Defendant"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "WYNN, Judge.\nWhile on probation and under electronic house arrest Kenneth Lee McKenneth Miller shot and killed Stacey Humphries and seriously injured Tyrone Humphries. Both Tyrone Humphries and the estate of Stacey Humphries brought actions against the North Carolina Department of Corrections (DOC) under the State Tort Claims Act alleging that its probation officer negligently supervised Miller.\nThe record indicates that Miller, on probation and under electronic house arrest for various drug charges, had prior convictions for drug dealing, assault inflicting serious injury and larceny of a firearm, and was suspected of federal firearms violations. He frequently reported to his probation officer that the leg bands necessary to monitor him under electronic house arrest were getting broken at work. In fact, Miller had been fired from his employment, but the probation officer failed to contact his employer to determine his employment status.\nWhen broken, the leg bands could be left near the transmitter in his residence allowing him to evade the restrictions of electronic house arrest. On one such occasion, Miller assaulted Tyrone Humphries and killed Stacey Humphries.\nThe plaintiffs\u2019 actions were heard before Deputy Commissioner Scott M. Taylor who issued a decision finding that the probation officer had breached his duty to exercise ordinary care in the supervision of Miller by failing to contact Miller\u2019s employer, and that the breach proximately caused the injuries suffered by Stacey and Tyrone Humphries. Agreeing with Deputy Commissioner Scott, the Full Commission affirmed. DOC appeals from that order.\nThe deciding issue on appeal is whether the public duty doctrine bars plaintiffs\u2019 claim in negligence against DOC. For the reasons given in our recent opinion of Hedrick v. Rains, 121 N.C. App. 466, 466 S.E.2d 281, disc. review allowed, 343 N.C. 511, 472 S.E.2d 8 (1996), we hold that it does and therefore reverse the decision of the Full Commission.\nIn that case, we noted that \u201c[a]s a general rule of common law, specifically adopted in North Carolina, known as the \u2018public duty doctrine,\u2019 law enforcement officials and agencies are deemed to act for the benefit of the general public rather than specific individuals.\u201d Id. at 469, 466 S.E.2d at 283. The public duty doctrine, adopted by our Supreme Court in Braswell v. Braswell, 330 N.C. 363, 410 S.E.2d 897 (1991), has two well recognized exceptions:\n[fjirst, where there is a special relationship between the injured party and the [agency], and second, where the \u201c[agency] . . . creates a special duty by promising protection to an individual, the protection is not forthcoming, and the individual\u2019s reliance on the promise is causally related to the injury suffered.\u201d\nHedrick, 121 N.C. App. at 470, 466 S.E.2d at 284 (quoting Sinning v. Clark, 119 N.C. App. 515, 519, 459 S.E.2d 71, 74, disc. review denied, 342 N.C. 194, 463 S.E.2d 242 (1995) (citations omitted)) (emphasis added). These two exceptions have been very narrowly applied in this state. Clark v. Red Bird Cab Co., 114 N.C. App. 400, 404, 442 S.E.2d 75, 78, disc. review denied, 336 N.C. 603, 447 S.E.2d 387 (1994).\nNothing in the record of the case sub judice indicates a special relationship between Stacey and Tyrone Humphries and the DOC. Moreover, to make out a prima facie case under the special duty exception, \u201cplaintiff must show that an actual promise was made by the police to create a special duty, that this promise was reasonably relied upon by the plaintiff, and that this reliance was causally related to the injury ultimately suffered by plaintiff.\u201d Braswell, 330 N.C. at 371, 410 S.E.2d at 902. There is no indication of any promise of protection given to Tyrone or Stacey Humphries by Mr. Miller\u2019s probation officer or the DOC.\nSince neither exception to the public duty doctrine applies in this case, the general rule dictates that the probation officer and the DOC owed a duty to the general public at large, and not to Tyrone and Stacey Humphries specifically. Where, as here, there is no duty owed to the injured party, there can be no negligence. Accordingly, we hold that the Industrial Commission erred in finding DOC negligent.\nReversed.\nJudges JOHN and McGEE concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "WYNN, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Judith G. Behar, for plaintiff s-appellees.",
      "Michael F. Easley, Attorney General, by Don Wright, Assistant Attorney General, for the State."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "DORIS HUMPHRIES, Administrator of the Estate of STACEY HUMPHRIES, Deceased; and TYRONE HUMPHRIES, Plaintiffs v. NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, Defendant\nNo. COA96-224\n(Filed 19 November 1996)\nSheriffs, Police, and Other Law Enforcement Officers \u00a7 20 (NCI4th)\u2014 murder and assault by prisoner on probation\u2014 evasion of house arrest \u2014 public duty doctrine \u2014 Department of Correction not liable\nThe Industrial Commission erred by finding the Department of Correction negligent where one Miller was on probation and house arrest for various drug charges, with prior convictions for drug dealing, assault inflicting serious injury, and other offenses; he frequently reported to his probation officer that the leg bands necessary for his electronic house arrest were getting broken at work; the leg bands when broken could be left near the transmitter in his residence, allowing him to evade house arrest; Miller had, in fact, been fired, but his probation officer failed to contact his employer, and he assaulted plaintiff and murdered plaintiff\u2019s decedent while evading electronic house arrest. Under the public duty doctrine, law enforcement officials and agencies are deemed to act for the benefit of the general public rather than specific individuals, with two exceptions; a special relationship between the injured party and the agency, and when the agency creates a special duty by promising protection to the agency. Nothing here indicates a special relationship and there is no indication of any promise of protection given to the plaintiffs by the probation officer or DOC.\nAm Jur 2d, Escape \u00a7 24.\nLiability of public officer or body for harm done by prisoner permitted to escape. 44 ALR3d 899.\nAppeal by defendant from a Decision and Order entered 28 November 1995 by the North Carolina Industrial Commission. Heard in the Court of Appeals 24 October 1996.\nJudith G. Behar, for plaintiff s-appellees.\nMichael F. Easley, Attorney General, by Don Wright, Assistant Attorney General, for the State."
  },
  "file_name": "0545-01",
  "first_page_order": 583,
  "last_page_order": 586
}
