Municipal – Tort/Negligence – Wrongful Death – Public Official Immunity – Public Official vs. Public employee – Use of Discretion – Summary Judgment

Hunter v. Transylvania County DSS (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-07-1049, 33 pp.) (John C. Martin, Ch.J. Appealed from Transylvania County Superior Court (Dennis J. Winner, J.). N.C. App. Click here to read the full text of the opinion.

Holdings:  Because the defendant was vested with and exercised discretion consistent with those exercised by a public official, and since the plaintiff conceded that the conduct of the official was not malicious, corrupt, or outside the scope of her official authority, the claim against the public official is barred on the basis of public official immunity.

We reverse the trial court’s denial of defendant Moody’s motion for summary judgment.

Facts

Plaintiff was the maternal grandmother of the decedent, Aundrea. In the 18 months prior to Aundrea’s death, plaintiff repeatedly contacted the department of social services (DSS) alleging that Aundrea’s mother and her boyfriend had been neglecting her.

Defendant Moody, a DSS employee, conducted office interviews with plaintiff and Aundrea’s mother separately and together and also conducted a home visit at the mother’s apartment.

Two cases opened after plaintiff’s complaints were closed due to a lack of evidence. A third was pending when Aundrea died as a result of shaken baby syndrome. The mother’s boyfriend was sentenced to two years in prison for his role in Aundrea’s death.

Plaintiff brought a wrongful death action on behalf of Aundrea’s estate against multiple defendants, including Moody. She alleged that Moody individually and in her official capacity as an agent of DSS failed to thoroughly investigate and adequately respond to the claims of neglect.

The defendants, including Moody and DSS, moved to dismiss.

The trial court denied Moody’s motion to dismiss based on public official immunity and granted partial summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff on that issue.

The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of other defendants and Moody in her official capacity based on sovereign immunity. Moody appealed.

Analysis

 Moody’s appeal is interlocutory. Interlocutory appeals are proper when the order denies an appellant a substantial right.

The denial of a summary judgment motion based on a claim of immunity is immediately appealable because, if a case were permitted to proceed to trial regardless of a valid immunity claim, the immunity would be effectively lost.

Moody argued that she is entitled to public official immunity as a representative of the state, and that the public official doctrine bars plaintiff’s claim against her in her individual capacity.

A public official can only be held individually liable for damages when the conduct complained of is malicious, corrupt, or outside the scope of official authority.

A public employee, as opposed to a public official, can be held individually liable for mere negligence in the performance of his governmental or discretionary duties.

Moody did not act corruptly or maliciously; therefore, to survive a motion for summary judgment, plaintiff’s claim must rest on whether Moody was vested with sufficient power and discretion as a social worker to qualify as a public official, or whether Moody should be classified as a public employee.

A public official is one whose position is created by state constitution or statutes and exercises some portion of sovereign power and discretion, whereas public employees perform ministerial duties.

Reviewing the evidence pertaining to Moody’s job functions with DSS, we conclude that Moody exercised discretion in the performance of her duties.

We conclude that Moody was vested with and exercised discretion consistent with those that qualify as a public official.

No genuine issue of material fact exists with regards to the claim against Moody; therefore, summary judgment is appropriate.

The claim against Moody is barred, and the judgment of the trial court must be reversed and this case remanded to the trial court for entry of summary judgment in favor of defendant Moody.

Reversed and remanded.