‘Reckless’ response: Officer’s run to routine shoplifting call leaves man paralyzed

Action: Negligence, recklessness, willful and wanton conduct

Injuries alleged: Trauma-induced stroke and paralysis

Case name: Hatcher v. Rodriguez

Case no.: 22 CVS 269

Amount: $4.4 million

Date: Dec. 11, 2025

Attorney: Coleman Cowan of The Law Offices of James Scott Farrin in Durham (for the plaintiff)

Plaintiff James Hatcher was permanently paralyzed when a Laurinburg police officer struck his vehicle from behind while responding to a routine shoplifting call. Hatcher was making a left turn in a residential zone toward home when the collision occurred. The officer was the fourth from his department to respond to the same call. By the time he began his response, one officer was already on scene of the shoplifting and within moments there was an uneventful apprehension. Two others had responded ahead of him, both following department Standard Operating Procedures by observing all traffic laws and arriving safely. The defendant was the only officer to respond with emergency traffic—and the only one who never reached his destination. At the time of the collision, the officer was accelerating to 52 mph in a posted 35-mph no-passing residential zone, attempting to pass a line of vehicles approaching an intersection while simultaneously trying to activate a siren he had left in the “OFF” position. Hatcher, unaware of the silent, accelerating vehicle behind him, activated his turn signal and began his turn. The collision was catastrophic and permanent. Hatcher can no longer walk, care for himself, or live independently, and requires ongoing assistance with basic daily activities. The department’s internal investigation concluded the officer violated multiple Standard Operating Procedures, and a department supervisor characterized his conduct as reckless in sworn testimony. The case was contested at every stage. Defendants offered nothing at the first of three mediations. When their motion for summary judgment was denied, they appealed to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the trial court. Defendants then sought discretionary review from the Supreme Court, which was withdrawn when the case resolved.