Frink v. Batten

646 S.E.2d 809, 184 N.C. App. 725, 2007 N.C. App. LEXIS 1612
CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina
DecidedJuly 17, 2007
DocketCOA06-633
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 646 S.E.2d 809 (Frink v. Batten) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Frink v. Batten, 646 S.E.2d 809, 184 N.C. App. 725, 2007 N.C. App. LEXIS 1612 (N.C. Ct. App. 2007).

Opinion

GEER, Judge.

Defendants Columbus County, Chris Batten (the Columbus County Sheriff), Alexander Singletary (th§ Columbus County Jail Administrator), and Billy Joe Farmer (the Columbus County Administrator) (collectively, the “Columbus County defendants”) appeal the denial of their motion to transfer venue. This action arises out of the suicide of Dewayne Devon Frink, which plaintiffs allege was the result of acts and omissions of the Columbus County defendants and the defendants employed by Robeson County (collectively, the “Robeson County defendants”).

Under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-77 (2005), actions against public officers “must be tried in the county where the cause, or some part thereof, arose . . . .” (Emphasis added.) Significantly, in this case, the defendants come from two counties. As a result, one of the sets of defendants will be required to litigate the case outside their home county. While plaintiffs could have filed suit in Columbus County, we agree with the trial court that plaintiffs’ causes of action arose at least in part in Robeson County and venue is, therefore, proper in that county. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of the Columbus County defendants’ motion to transfer venue to Columbus County Superior Court.

*727 Background

Plaintiffs brought this action in Robeson County Superior Court to recover for the alleged wrongful death of Dewayne Devon Frink. The named defendants include Robeson County, Columbus County, and various public officials and employees of the respective counties. In the complaint, plaintiffs allege that the following events took place.

On 21 April 2003, Frink, the decedent, was taken into custody at the Columbus County jail and, shortly afterwards, was transferred to the Robeson County Detention Center pursuant to an agreement between the two counties. In approximately June 2003, while housed at the Robeson County facility, Frink began complaining that his “mind [was] just not right.” Over the course of several weeks, Frink made apparent attempts to commit suicide by trying to hang himself. Plaintiffs allege that in early July 2003, officials at the Robeson County facility contacted the Columbus County jail, explained to their Columbus County counterparts that Frink was suicidal, and indicated that they wished to return Frink to Columbus County’s custody.

On 7 July 2003, Frink was transported back to the Columbus County jail by a Columbus County official without his medical records also being transferred. Upon his arrival at the jail, he was placed within the general inmate population, which, at that time, exceeded the jail’s capacity by 40 inmates. Frink hung himself and died in the early morning hours of 9 July 2003.

The Columbus County defendants filed a motion to transfer venue to Columbus County Superior Court or, in the alternative, to sever plaintiffs’ claims. In a written order, Judge Jack A. Thompson denied the motion, concluding that severance of the action was not warranted and that “Robeson County is a proper venue for the claims asserted against all defendants in this action, pursuant to N.C.G.S. §§ 1-77(2) and 1-83 . . . .” The Columbus County defendants have appealed the denial of their motion to change venue.

Discussion

Since the Columbus County defendants argue only that the motion to transfer venue was wrongly denied and present no argument regarding their alternative motion to sever plaintiffs’ claims, the sole matter before us is the question of venue. Although the order denying the motion to change venue is an interlocutory order, defend *728 ants are entitled to immediate appellate review because “a denial of a motion to transfer venue affects a substantial right.” Hyde v. Anderson, 158 N.C. App. 307, 309, 580 S.E.2d 424, 425, disc. review denied, 357 N.C. 459, 585 S.E.2d 759 (2003).

On appeal, the Columbus County defendants assert a right to remove the trial to Columbus County under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-77(2):

Actions for the following causes must be tried in the county where the cause, or some part thereof, arose, subject to the power of the court to change the place of trial, in the cases provided by law:
(2) Against a public officer or person especially appointed to execute his duties, for an act done by him by virtue of his office; or against a person who by his command or in his aid does anything touching the duties of such officer.

(Emphasis added.) Where, as here, a “defendant, before the time of answering expires, demands in writing that the trial be conducted in the proper county,” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-83 (2005), “the court is given the authority to change the place of trial if ‘the county designated for that purpose is not the proper one.’ ” Thompson v. Norfolk S. Ry. Co., 140 N.C. App. 115, 122, 535 S.E.2d 397, 401 (2000) (quoting N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-83(1)).

The Columbus County defendants argue that plaintiffs’ causes of action arose solely in Columbus County because the only tangible injury in this case — namely, Frink’s death — occurred in Columbus County. Not surprisingly, the Robeson County defendants object to having “the entirety of this case . . . moved to Columbus County.” They contend that “actionable conduct took place in two specific locations at two specific times i.e., Plaintiff claims the Robeson County Defendants acted wrongfully while Plaintiff’s decedent was an inmate in the Robeson County Jail, and that the Columbus County Defendants acted wrongfully while he was an inmate in the Columbus County Jail.” Because “all of the actions alleged against [the Robeson County defendants] by Plaintiff[s] took place in the course of their official duties in Robeson County,” they argue that venue is proper in Robeson County.

The Columbus County defendants’ argument rests solely on their contention that an action arises, for purposes of venue, where the injury occurred. Our courts have, however, long recognized, in apply *729 ing § 1-77, a general rule that “ ‘the cause of action arises in the county where the acts or omissions constituting the basis of the action occurred.’ ” Wells v. Cumberland County Hosp. Sys., Inc., 150 N.C. App. 584, 589, 564 S.E.2d 74, 77 (2002) (emphasis added) (quoting Coats v. Sampson County Mem’l Hosp., Inc., 264 N.C. 332, 334, 141 S.E.2d 490, 492 (1965)).

The Columbus County defendants’ contention was specifically rejected in Cecil v. City of High Point, 165 N.C. 431, 433, 81 S.E. 616, 617 (1914), in which our Supreme Court construed a predecessor version of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-77 that included the same phrase at issue here: “where the cause of action or some part thereof arose.” The plaintiff in Cecil

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Wright v. Wood
Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2024
Heustess v. Bladenboro Emergency Servs., Inc.
791 S.E.2d 669 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2016)
Orbitz, LLC v. Hoyle
2013 NCBC 29 (North Carolina Business Court, 2013)
Roberts Ex Rel. Perry v. Adventure Holdings, LLC
703 S.E.2d 784 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2010)
Town of Maiden v. Lincoln County
680 S.E.2d 754 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2009)
Frink v. Batten
676 S.E.2d 670 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2009)
Ford v. Paddock
674 S.E.2d 689 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2009)
Odom v. Clark
668 S.E.2d 33 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2008)
Myers v. Bryant
652 S.E.2d 752 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2007)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
646 S.E.2d 809, 184 N.C. App. 725, 2007 N.C. App. LEXIS 1612, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/frink-v-batten-ncctapp-2007.