{ "id": 9443380, "name": "JOSEPH PATRICK SUMMEY, Plaintiff v. RONALD BARKER, FORSYTH COUNTY SHERIFF; and HARTFORD INSURANCE COMPANY, SURETY; MICHAEL SCHWEITZER, chief jailer of Forsyth County in their official capacities; LINDA SIDES; JOE MADDUX, Correctional Medical Services, Inc., d/b/a CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL SYSTEMS a/k/a CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL SERVICES, Defendants", "name_abbreviation": "Summey v. Barker", "decision_date": "2001-04-03", "docket_number": "No. COA00-106", "first_page": "688", "last_page": "691", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "142 N.C. App. 688" } ], "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": "429 S.E.2d 744", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1993, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "747" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "110 N.C. App. 422", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8525730 ], "year": 1993, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "427-28" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/110/0422-01" ] }, { "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 58-76-5", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "413 S.E.2d 276", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1992, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "330 N.C. 761", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2511641 ], "year": 1992, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/330/0761-01" ] }, { "cite": "389 S.E.2d 596", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1990, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "599" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "97 N.C. App. 527", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8522096 ], "year": 1990, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "533" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/97/0527-01" ] }, { "cite": "435 S.E.2d 336", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1993, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "334 N.C. 621", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2530443, 2532332, 2530396, 2531257, 2532508 ], "year": 1993, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/334/0621-03", "/nc/334/0621-02", "/nc/334/0621-05", "/nc/334/0621-04", "/nc/334/0621-01" ] }, { "cite": "431 S.E.2d 489", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 3, "year": 1993, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "493" }, { "page": "494" }, { "page": "496" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "110 N.C. App. 707", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8526342 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1993, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "714" }, { "page": "714" }, { "page": "715" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/110/0707-01" ] }, { "cite": "486 S.E.2d 443", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1997, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "446", "parenthetical": "citation omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "126 N.C. App. 602", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 11712298 ], "year": 1997, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "608", "parenthetical": "citation omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/126/0602-01" ] }, { "cite": "442 S.E.2d 519", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1994, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "335 N.C. 770", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2532101, 2527527, 2527596, 2527312, 2528350 ], "year": 1994, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/335/0770-05", "/nc/335/0770-02", "/nc/335/0770-03", "/nc/335/0770-04", "/nc/335/0770-01" ] }, { "cite": "435 S.E.2d 537", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1993, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "541", "parenthetical": "citation omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "112 N.C. App. 295", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8521339 ], "year": 1993, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "300", "parenthetical": "citation omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/112/0295-01" ] }, { "cite": "476 S.E.2d 115", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1996, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "citations omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "344 N.C. 436", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 867688, 867668, 867542, 867642, 867614 ], "year": 1996, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "citations omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/344/0436-01", "/nc/344/0436-04", "/nc/344/0436-03", "/nc/344/0436-05", "/nc/344/0436-02" ] }, { "cite": "468 S.E.2d 846", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 3, "year": 1996, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "849", "parenthetical": "citations omitted" }, { "page": "850" }, { "page": "493-94" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "122 N.C. App. 198", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 11916366 ], "year": 1996, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "201", "parenthetical": "citations omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/122/0198-01" ] }, { "cite": "445 S.E.2d 46", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1994, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "336 N.C. 77", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2535471 ], "year": 1994, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/336/0077-01" ] }, { "cite": "436 S.E.2d 276", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1993, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "112 N.C. App. 604", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8523032 ], "year": 1993, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/112/0604-01" ] }, { "cite": "253 S.E.2d 362", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1979, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "40 N.C. App. 570", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8551863 ], "year": 1979, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/40/0570-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 500, "char_count": 9157, "ocr_confidence": 0.755, "pagerank": { "raw": 3.7192006722456695e-07, "percentile": 0.8937690961905501 }, "sha256": "011cd4cd9e7252ba3722bb267f4ef6c9b138386e79880d671d33afe6d2863519", "simhash": "1:0928157824df1e56", "word_count": 1399 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:11:55.437222+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges TIMMONS-GOODSON and TYSON concur." ], "parties": [ "JOSEPH PATRICK SUMMEY, Plaintiff v. RONALD BARKER, FORSYTH COUNTY SHERIFF; and HARTFORD INSURANCE COMPANY, SURETY; MICHAEL SCHWEITZER, chief jailer of Forsyth County in their official capacities; LINDA SIDES; JOE MADDUX, Correctional Medical Services, Inc., d/b/a CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL SYSTEMS a/k/a CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL SERVICES, Defendants" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "MARTIN, Judge.\nPlaintiff filed this action alleging claims against defendants arising from events allegedly occurring while plaintiff was incarcerated in the Forsyth County Jail. Plaintiff, who suffers from hemophilia, alleged that defendants failed to respond properly to plaintiffs nose bleed, which ultimately caused him to be hospitalized for more than ten days at Baptist Hospital in Winston-Salem. Plaintiff alleged claims for relief for negligence, violations of plaintiffs civil rights under Article I of the North Carolina Constitution, and against defendants Barker and Schweitzer for breach of their statutory duties and malfeasance in office. Plaintiff alleged that defendant Hartford was the surety on the sheriffs official bond.\nDefendants Barker, Schweitzer, and Hartford, as sheriffs surety, moved to dismiss plaintiffs first and second claims for relief, alleging negligence and a violation of Article I of the North Carolina Constitution, contending that public official\u2019s immunity barred plaintiffs negligence claim, and that monetary claims could not be brought in state court for violations of the state constitution. The trial court granted defendants\u2019 motion to dismiss plaintiff\u2019s second claim for relief under Article I of the North Carolina Constitution but denied defendants\u2019 motion to dismiss the negligence claim against defendants Barker, Schweitzer, and Hartford. Defendants appeal the trial court\u2019s denial of their motion to dismiss the first claim for relief.\nDefendants have appealed from an interlocutory order. Generally, no immediate appeal lies from an interlocutory order. Auction Co. v. Myers, 40 N.C. App. 570, 253 S.E.2d 362 (1979). However, when the order appealed from affects a substantial right, a party has a right to an immediate appeal. N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 l-277(a); 7A-27(d)(1). Orders denying dispositive motions based on public official\u2019s immunity affect a substantial right and are immediately appealable. Taylor v. Ashburn, 112 N.C. App. 604, 436 S.E.2d 276 (1993), disc. review denied, 336 N.C. 77, 445 S.E.2d 46 (1994). We review the appeal of interlocutory orders in these cases because \u201c \u2018the essence of absolute immunity is its possessor\u2019s entitlement not to have to answer for his conduct in a civil damages action.\u2019 \u201d Epps v. Duke University, Inc., 122 N.C. App. 198, 201, 468 S.E.2d 846, 849, disc. review denied, 344 N.C. 436, 476 S.E.2d 115 (1996) (citations omitted). Thus, defendants\u2019 appeal is properly before us.\nIn reviewing the denial of a motion to dismiss pursuant to N.C.R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), \u201c[t]he question for the court is whether, as a matter of law, the allegations of the complaint, treated as true, are sufficient to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under some legal theory, whether properly labeled or not.\u201d Miller v. Nationwide Mutual Ins. Co., 112 N.C. App. 295, 300, 435 S.E.2d 537, 541 (1993) (citation omitted), disc. review denied, 335 N.C. 770, 442 S.E.2d 519 (1994). Under this rule, a claim is properly dismissed \u201c \u2018if no law exists to support the claim made, if sufficient facts to make out a good claim are absent, or if facts are disclosed which will necessarily defeat the claim.\u2019 \u201d Claggett v. Wake Forest University, 126 N.C. App. 602, 608, 486 S.E.2d 443, 446 (1997) (citation omitted). The issue before this Court is whether public official\u2019s immunity bars plaintiff\u2019s claims alleging negligence against defendants Barker and Schweitzer. We hold that, to the extent of the bond required by G.S. \u00a7 58-76-5, public official\u2019s immunity does not bar plaintiff\u2019s claim, and we therefore affirm the trial court\u2019s denial of defendants\u2019 motion to dismiss.\nIn general, \u201cthe doctrine of governmental, or sovereign, immunity bars actions against, inter alia, the state, its counties, and its public officials sued in their official capacity.\u201d Messick v. Catawba County, N.C., 110 N.C. App. 707, 714, 431 S.E.2d 489, 493, disc. review denied, 334 N.C. 621, 435 S.E.2d 336 (1993). A public official sued in his official capacity \u201coperates against the public entity itself, as the public entity is ultimately financially responsible for the com-pensable conduct of its officers.\u201d Epps, 112 N.C. App. at 203, 468 S.E.2d at 850.\nGovernmental or sovereign immunity \u201cprevents the State or its agencies from being sued without its consent.\u201d Corum v. University of North Carolina, 97 N.C. App. 527, 533, 389 S.E.2d 596, 599 (1990), affirmed in part, reversed in part on other grounds, 330 N.C. 761, 413 S.E.2d 276 (1992). The doctrine of governmental immunity \u201cis inapplicable, however, where the state has consented to suit or has waived its immunity through the purchase of liability insurance.\u201d Messick, 110 N.C. App. at 714, 468 S.E.2d at 493-94. Defendants contend public official\u2019s immunity bars plaintiff\u2019s claims against defendants in their official capacities. Pursuant to statute, however, public officers may be sued in their official capacities:\nEvery person injured by the neglect, misconduct, or misbehavior in office of any clerk of the superior court, register, surveyor, sheriff, coroner, county treasurer, or other officer, may institute a suit or suits against said officer or any of them and their sureties upon their respective bonds for the due performance of their duties in office in the name of the State ....\nN.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 58-76-5. \u201cBy expressly providing for this cause of action, the General Assembly has abrogated common law immunity where a public official causes injury through \u2018neglect, misconduct, or misbehavior\u2019 in the performance of his official duties or under color of his office.\u201d Slade v. Vernon, 110 N.C. App. 422, 427-28, 429 S.E.2d 744, 747 (1993). The statutory requirement of a bond removes the sheriff \u201cfrom the protective embrace of governmental immunity, but only where the surety is joined as a party to the action.\u201d Messick, 110 N.C. App. at 715, 431 S.E.2d at 494. Our courts have recognized that both sheriffs and deputy sheriffs are public officers. Id. at 718, 431 S.E.2d at 496.\nIn the present case, plaintiff brings suit against defendants Barker and Schweitzer: \u201cRonald Barker, Forsyth County Sheriff; and Hartford Insurance Company, Surety; Michael Schweitzer, chief jailer of Forsyth County, in their official capacities.\u201d The complaint identifies defendant Barker as \u201cSheriff\u2019 of \u201cForsyth County,\u201d \u201ca duly elected official\u201d who \u201cexercises authority over local confinement facilities, including . . . the supervision of personnel of the Forsyth County Jail\u201d; and identifies defendant Schweitzer as Chief Jailer with supervisory authority over personnel at the Forsyth County Jail. Moreover, the complaint alleges:\n31. The acts or admissions and or negligence of the Forsyth County Jail personnel who failed to render appropriate medical care to the Plaintiff are imputed to Michael Schweitzer, Chief Jailer Forsyth County, Ronald Barker Sheriff of Forsyth County, operating in their official capacity; and Forsyth County.\nAccording to the complaint, therefore, defendants Barker and Schweitzer were public officers acting in their official capacities. Plaintiff also alleged that defendant Barker had furnished a bond pursuant to G.S. \u00a7 162-8 and G.S. \u00a7 58-76-5, and had purchased the bond from defendant Hartford, and joined Hartford as surety. Defendants, accordingly, are not immune from suit because of the existence of the bond which operates to remove the protection of governmental immunity. The denial of defendants\u2019 motion to dismiss plaintiff\u2019s first claim for relief is affirmed.\nAffirmed.\nJudges TIMMONS-GOODSON and TYSON concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "MARTIN, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Smith & Combs, by John R. Combs and Steven D. Smith, for 'plaintiff-appellee.", "Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, by Allan R. Gitter and Stacey M. Stone, for defendant-appellants." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "JOSEPH PATRICK SUMMEY, Plaintiff v. RONALD BARKER, FORSYTH COUNTY SHERIFF; and HARTFORD INSURANCE COMPANY, SURETY; MICHAEL SCHWEITZER, chief jailer of Forsyth County in their official capacities; LINDA SIDES; JOE MADDUX, Correctional Medical Services, Inc., d/b/a CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL SYSTEMS a/k/a CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL SERVICES, Defendants\nNo. COA00-106\n(Filed 3 April 2001)\n1. Appeal and Error\u2014 appealability \u2014 public official\u2019s immunity\nOrders denying dispositive motions based on public official\u2019s immunity affect a substantial right and are immediately appealable.\n2. Immunity\u2014 governmental \u2014 action against sheriff and jailer \u2014 surety bond\nThe trial court correctly denied defendants\u2019 Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss claims for negligence and violations of civil rights where a plaintiff who suffered from hemophilia alleged that defendants, the sheriff and the chief jailer, failed to respond properly to a nosebleed while he was incarcerated, resulting in his hospitalization. According to the complaint, defendants were public officers acting in their official capacities and a bond had been purchased, which removed the protection of governmental immunity.\nAppeal by defendants Barker, Schweitzer, and Hartford Insurance Company from order entered 14 December 1999 by Judge Catherine C. Eagles in Forsyth County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 15 February 2001.\nSmith & Combs, by John R. Combs and Steven D. Smith, for 'plaintiff-appellee.\nWomble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, by Allan R. Gitter and Stacey M. Stone, for defendant-appellants." }, "file_name": "0688-01", "first_page_order": 718, "last_page_order": 721 }