{ "id": 4353660, "name": "CATRYN DENISE BRIDGES v. HARVEY S. PARRISH and BARBARA B. PARRISH", "name_abbreviation": "Bridges v. Parrish", "decision_date": "2013-06-13", "docket_number": "No. 409A12", "first_page": "539", "last_page": "544", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "366 N.C. 539" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.C.", "id": 9292, "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 5, "name_long": "North Carolina", "name": "N.C." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "731 S.E.2d 262", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2012, "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "626 S.E.2d 263", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 12635149 ], "weight": 8, "year": 2006, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "267", "parenthetical": "citation omitted" }, { "page": "328" }, { "page": "268", "parenthetical": "alterations in original" }, { "page": "268" }, { "page": "329" }, { "page": "268" }, { "page": "268", "parenthetical": "first alteration in original" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/626/0263-01" ] }, { "cite": "631 S.E.2d 121", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 12636050 ], "year": 2006, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "123", "parenthetical": "citation and internal quotation marks omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/631/0121-01" ] }, { "cite": "681 S.E.2d 320", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2009, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "323" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "363 N.C. 546", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4151316 ], "year": 2009, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "550" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/363/0546-01" ] }, { "cite": "594 S.E.2d 1", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2004, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "8" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "358 N.C. 160", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2986939 ], "year": 2004, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "169" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/358/0160-01" ] }, { "cite": "507 S.E.2d 882", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1998, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "892" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "349 N.C. 615", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 571622 ], "year": 1998, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "632" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/349/0615-01" ] }, { "cite": "138 S.E.2d 789", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1964, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "794", "parenthetical": "\"[A] very high degree of care is required from all persons using firearms in the immediate vicinity of others regardless of how lawful or innocent such use may be.\" (emphasis added)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "263 N.C. 24", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8566717 ], "year": 1964, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "31", "parenthetical": "\"[A] very high degree of care is required from all persons using firearms in the immediate vicinity of others regardless of how lawful or innocent such use may be.\" (emphasis added)" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/263/0024-01" ] }, { "cite": "152 S.E.2d 122", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1967, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "126", "parenthetical": "\"It is settled law with us that the highest degree of care is exacted of those handling firearms.\" (emphasis added)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "269 N.C. 30", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8561753 ], "year": 1967, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "35", "parenthetical": "\"It is settled law with us that the highest degree of care is exacted of those handling firearms.\" (emphasis added)" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/269/0030-01" ] }, { "cite": "42 S.E.2d 657", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1947, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "658", "parenthetical": "citations and internal quotation marks omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "227 N.C. 572", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8626495 ], "year": 1947, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "574", "parenthetical": "citations and internal quotation marks omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/227/0572-01" ] }, { "cite": "295 S.E.2d 436", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 4, "year": 1982, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "440", "parenthetical": "citations omitted" }, { "page": "438" }, { "page": "442" }, { "page": "441-42, 443" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "306 N.C. 618", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8573268 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1982, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "623", "parenthetical": "citations omitted" }, { "page": "620" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/306/0618-01" ] }, { "cite": "281 S.E.2d 36", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1981, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "38" }, { "page": "39", "parenthetical": "citation omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "303 N.C. 636", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8575062 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1981, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "638" }, { "page": "640" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/303/0636-01" ] }, { "cite": "505 S.E.2d 131", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1998, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "137" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "349 N.C. 196", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 571637 ], "year": 1998, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "205" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/349/0196-01" ] }, { "cite": "360 N.C. 321", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 3791894 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2006, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "328", "parenthetical": "citation omitted" }, { "page": "329" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/360/0321-01" ] }, { "cite": "360 N.C. 493", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 3788520 ], "year": 2006, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "494-95", "parenthetical": "citation and internal quotation marks omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/360/0493-01" ] }, { "cite": "731 S.E.2d 262", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 6, "year": 2012, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "264-65" }, { "page": "266-67" }, { "page": "268-69", "parenthetical": "Geer, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part" } ], "opinion_index": 0 } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 746, "char_count": 12730, "ocr_confidence": 0.751, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.8398053532599812e-07, "percentile": 0.7219785786738918 }, "sha256": "90991c6f28ea085a7be9c38e2e22561c76be5aa18a0b1a9ee7dfc45a3fe88e0e", "simhash": "1:c109c46c74e7085a", "word_count": 2068 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:35:25.873086+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Justice BEASLEY took no part in the consideration or decision of this case." ], "parties": [ "CATRYN DENISE BRIDGES v. HARVEY S. PARRISH and BARBARA B. PARRISH" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "MARTIN, Justice.\nPlaintiff, Catryn Bridges, seeks money damages from defendants, Harvey and Barbara Parrish, for the criminal acts of their 52-year-old son Bernie. Plaintiff alleges that Harvey and Barbara negligently stored their firearm, which Bernie wrongfully took from their home and used to shoot plaintiff. We hold these parents are not liable for the criminal conduct of their 52-year-old son.\nPlaintiff made the following allegations in her complaint: Plaintiff dated Harvey and Barbara\u2019s son, Bernie, for seven months in 2010. At that time she was unaware that Bernie had a history of escalating violence towards the women with whom he had romantic relationships and he had been charged with, among other things, first-degree kidnapping, assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill or inflict serious injury, and possession of a firearm by a felon in 2007. During the events at issue here, Bernie lived in a building on Harvey and Barbara\u2019s property, while they attempted to provide their son with guidance, advice, and financial assistance. Harvey and Barbara owned a number of firearms, to which Bernie occasionally had access. During Bernie\u2019s relationship with plaintiff, Harvey and Barbara met her on many occasions.\nAccording to the complaint, plaintiff ended her relationship with Bernie in November 2010 because he exhibited \u201ccontrolling, accusatory and risky\u201d behavior. They resumed their relationship in January 2011. The dysfunctional relationship dynamics again escalated. In a conversation on 7 March 2011, Bernie accused plaintiff of seeing other men. The next day Bernie drove to plaintiff\u2019s workplace and shot her in the abdomen with one of Harvey and Barbara\u2019s guns.\nFollowing the assault, rather than suing Bernie, plaintiff filed a civil complaint alleging that Harvey and Barbara \u201cknew or should have known that Bernie Parrish posed a risk of serious harm to Plaintiff\u201d yet \u201cfailed to take reasonable and/or necessary steps to keep [their] guns in a safe and secure place, or otherwise adequately locked and located such that Bernie Parrish could not get access to and possession of any such guns.\u201d Harvey and Barbara filed a motion to dismiss, which the trial court allowed. Plaintiff appealed to the Court of Appeals.\nOn appeal plaintiff proposed three theories of liability against Harvey and Barbara, only one of which is before us: a negligence claim alleging Harvey and Barbara breached a common law duty to secure their firearms from their son. Bridges v. Parrish, \u2014 N.C. App. \u2014, \u2014, 731 S.E.2d 262, 264-65 (2012). The Court of Appeals majority declined to find that such a duty arose under North Carolina common law. Id. at \u2014, 731 S.E.2d at 266-67. The dissenting judge would have reversed the trial court\u2019s decision and allowed plaintiff to proceed with a claim for negligent storage of a firearm. Id. at_, 731 S.E.2d at 268-69 (Geer, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). We affirm.\nOur review of the grant of a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure is de novo. We consider \u201cwhether the allegations of the complaint, if treated as true, are sufficient to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under some legal theory.\u201d Coley v. State, 360 N.C. 493, 494-95, 631 S.E.2d 121, 123 (2006) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).\nPlaintiff has asserted a common law negligence claim. To state a common law negligence claim, plaintiff must show \u201c(1) a legal duty; (2) a breach thereof; and (3) injury proximately caused by the breach.\u201d Stein v. Asheville Bd. of Educ., 360 N.C. 321, 328, 626 S.E.2d 263, 267 (2006) (citation omitted). In the case before us, the only element contested is whether Harvey and Barbara owed plaintiff a legal duty.\nWe have stated that \u201c[n]o legal duty exists unless the injury to the plaintiff was foreseeable and avoidable through due care.\u201d Id. at 328, 626 S.E.2d at 267 (citing Estate of Mullis v. Monroe Oil Co., 349 N.C. 196, 205, 505 S.E.2d 131, 137 (1998)). The criminal acts of a third party are generally considered \u201cunforeseeable and independent, intervening cause[s] absolving the [defendant] of liability.\u201d Id. at 329, 626 S.E.2d at 268 (alterations in original) (quoting Foster v. Winston-Salem Joint Venture, 303 N.C. 636, 638, 281 S.E.2d 36, 38 (1981)) (internal quotation marks omitted). For this reason, the law does not generally impose a duty to prevent the criminal acts of a third party. Id. at 328, 626 S.E.2d at 268.\nAs an exception to this rule, our common law may allow a defendant to be held liable for the criminal acts of a third party in cases of \u201cspecial relationships\u201d \u2014 \u201cwhen the defendant\u2019s relationship with the plaintiff or the third person justifies making the defendant answerable civilly for the harm to the plaintiff.\u201d Id. at 329, 626 S.E.2d at 268. Plaintiff has waived her argument that Harvey and Barbara had a special relationship with Bemie. Bridges, \u2014 N.C. App. at \u2014 n.1, 731 S.E.2d at 265 n.1 (majority opinion). Accordingly, to state a claim for negligence based on a special relationship, plaintiff\u2019s complaint must allege facts sufficient to show that her relationship with Harvey and Barbara justified requiring them to use due care to prevent the attack on her.\nSpecial relationships create a responsibility to take \u201caffirmative action for the aid or protection of another,\u201d 2 Restatement (Second) of Torts \u00a7 314 A cmt. b (1965), and they arise only in narrow circumstances. For example, \u201cthe parent of an unemancipated child may be held liable in damages for failing to exercise reasonable control over the child\u2019s behavior if the parent had the ability and the opportunity to control the child and knew or should have known of the necessity for exercising such control.\u201d Moore v. Crumpton, 306 N.C. 618, 623, 295 S.E.2d 436, 440 (1982) (citations omitted). In addition, a landowner has a \u201cduty to safeguard his business invitees from the criminal acts of third persons\u201d if those criminal acts are foreseeable. Foster, 303 N.C. at 640, 281 S.E.2d at 39 (citation omitted). Further, common carriers owe a duty \u201cto provide for the safe conveyance of their passengers as far as human care and foresight can go.\u201d Smith v. Camel City Cab Co., 227 N.C. 572, 574, 42 S.E.2d 657, 658 (1947) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). Other special relationships include those between innkeepers and their guests and people who voluntarily accept custody of another. See 2 Restatement (Second) of Torts \u00a7 314 A. In these cases special relationships creating liability have arisen through circumstances such as voluntary assumption of another\u2019s care and well-being or the ability to control the third person at the time of the criminal acts.\nHere, plaintiff\u2019s complaint is devoid of any allegations that, if taken as true, demonstrate that Harvey and Barbara had a special relationship with her that gave rise to a legal duty. Like the defendants in Moore, Harvey and Barbara did not prevent their child from accessing a deadly weapon that the child used to harm another person. Moore, 306 N.C. at 620, 295 S.E.2d at 438. While parents may be held liable for the actions of their children in some circumstances, we noted in Moore that \u201c[t]he opportunity to control a young man of [17 years] obviously is not as great as with a younger child. . . . Short of standing guard over the child twenty-four hours a day, there was little that the defendant father could do to prevent\u201d the harm to the plaintiff. Id. at 626, 295 S.E.2d at 442. We did not hold the parents in Moore responsible for the criminal actions of their 17-year-old son. Id. at 626, 628, 295 S.E.2d at 441-42, 443. Even more so, Harvey and Barbara are not liable for the criminal actions of their 52-year-old son.\nBecause plaintiff has not stated a claim that supports a finding of negligence based on a special relationship, the only remaining theory of liability is that Harvey and Barbara negligently breached a duty owed to plaintiff as a member of the general public. Relying on previous cases that have characterized firearms as dangerous instrumentalities, plaintiff argues that Harvey and Barbara had a duty to secure their firearms. We disagree. While our prior cases articulate a duty to exercise due care in the use of dangerous instrumentalities, they do not mandate a home storage requirement. Cf. Edwards v. Johnson, 269 N.C. 30, 35, 152 S.E.2d 122, 126 (1967) (\u201cIt is settled law with us that the highest degree of care is exacted of those handling firearms.\u201d (emphasis added)); Belt v. Boyce, 263 N.C. 24, 31, 138 S.E.2d 789, 794 (1964) (\u201c[A] very high degree of care is required from all persons using firearms in the immediate vicinity of others regardless of how lawful or innocent such use may be.\u201d (emphasis added)). The mere possession of a legal yet dangerous instrumentality does not create automatic liability when a third party takes that instrumentality and uses it in an illegal act. As long as the dangerous instrumentalities are kept in accordance with statutory regulations, the law does not impose civil liability under the present allegations.\nThe General Assembly has enacted a myriad of statutes relating to the use and storage of firearms. See, e.g., N.C.G.S. \u00a7\u00a7 14-269.2 (prohibiting firearms on educational property or at school-sponsored activities), -269.7 (prohibiting persons under the age of eighteen from possessing handguns), -315.1 (making it a crime to not secure firearms in premises shared with a minor), -415.11 (2011) (regulating concealed carry permits). The General Assembly, however, has not elected to impose civil liability in the circumstances presented in the case before us. Moreover, as defendants observe, \u201cnot a single appellate court has recognized a cause of action for negligent storage of a firearm broad enough to encompass the claim Plaintiff pleads here.\u201d\nAs amicus curiae aptly explains, \u201cunder Plaintiff\u2019s theory, a negligent-based cause of action would exist against a homeowner virtually any time a gun (or any other object that could be used to injure someone) was stolen from the homeowner\u2019s premise [s] and then used in the commission of a violent crime that injures another person.\u201d It logically follows that holding gun owners responsible for the criminal use of their guns by unauthorized adult users would unfairly burden those who lawfully own and store guns in their homes. Cf. Nelson v. Freeland, 349 N.C. 615, 632, 507 S.E.2d 882, 892 (1998).\nEven when all plaintiff\u2019s allegations are taken as true, Harvey and Barbara cannot be held liable for their 52-year-old son\u2019s criminal actions, which are \u201cunforeseeable and independent, intervening cause[s] absolving [defendants] of liability.\u201d Stein, 360 N.C. at 329, 626 S.E.2d at 268 (first alteration in original) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Our General Assembly is a \u201cfar more appropriate forum than the courts for implementing policy-based changes to our laws,\u201d Rhyne v. K-Mart Corp., 358 N.C. 160, 169, 594 S.E.2d 1, 8 (2004), so long as such policy-based changes are kept within constitutional bounds, see Britt v. State, 363 N.C. 546, 550, 681 S.E.2d 320, 323 (2009). Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals.\nAFFIRMED.\nJustice BEASLEY took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.", "type": "majority", "author": "MARTIN, Justice." } ], "attorneys": [ "Wake Forest University School of Law Appellate Advocacy Clinic, by John J. Korzen, for plaintiff-appellant.", "Poyner Spruill LLP, by Steven B. Epstein, for defendantappellees.", "Smith, Anderson, Blount, Dorsett, Mitchell & Jemigan, L.L.P., by Christopher R. Kiger, for North Carolina Association of Defense Attorneys, amicus curiae." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "CATRYN DENISE BRIDGES v. HARVEY S. PARRISH and BARBARA B. PARRISH\nNo. 409A12\n(Filed 13 June 2013)\nFirearms and Other Weapons\u2014 negligence \u2014 duty to secure firearms \u2014 mere possession does not create automatic liability\nThe trial court did not err by granting defendants\u2019 motion to dismiss a negligence claim alleging defendants breached a common law duty to secure their firearms from their fifty-two-year-old son. The mere possession of a legal yet dangerous instrumentality does not create automatic liability when a third party takes that instrumentality and uses it in an illegal act as long as the dangerous instrumentalities are kept in accordance with statutory regulations.\nJustice BEASLEY took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.\nAppeal pursuant to N.C.G.S. \u00a7 7A-30(2) from the decision of a divided panel of the Court of Appeals,-N.C. App.-, 731 S.E.2d 262 (2012), affirming an order dismissing plaintiff\u2019s complaint entered on 3 November 2011 by Judge Thomas D. Haigwood in Superior Court, Johnston County. Heard in the Supreme Court on 6 May 2013.\nWake Forest University School of Law Appellate Advocacy Clinic, by John J. Korzen, for plaintiff-appellant.\nPoyner Spruill LLP, by Steven B. Epstein, for defendantappellees.\nSmith, Anderson, Blount, Dorsett, Mitchell & Jemigan, L.L.P., by Christopher R. Kiger, for North Carolina Association of Defense Attorneys, amicus curiae." }, "file_name": "0539-01", "first_page_order": 571, "last_page_order": 576 }