Attorneys argue against Raleigh's push to dismiss Hailey Brooks lawsuit
RALEIGH, N.C. (WTVD) -- A Wake County judge is deciding whether the City of Raleigh can be held responsible for the death of 11-year-old Hailey Brooks during the 2022 Raleigh Christmas Parade after hearing two days' worth of arguments from attorneys for both the City and the Brooks family.
Hailey's parents were in the courtroom as proceedings got underway.
Superior Court Judge Bryan Collins heard closing statements as attorneys debated whether governmental immunity shields the City from liability in the case. City attorney Hunt Choi argued the legal burden rests with the Brooks family.
"The burden is on the plaintiff to convince you by a preponderance of the evidence of what happened," argued Choi.
Meanwhile, Brooks' family attorney John Miller countered that the evidence supports their claim.
"The abundance of evidence that we pointed to in a briefing today sort of shows the findings that would be necessary for the court to rule in our favor," he said.
At the center of the dispute is whether the city acted as a cooperator and coplanner of the parade, which the family argued would make Raleigh responsible for safety decisions leading up to the incident.
"The basic facts are the record shows that the Office of Special Events served as the city's central coordinating body for the parade," Miller said.
Choi pushed back and said the plaintiffs are stretching the law.
"They can slice it and dice it every which way," Choi refuted. "What the Supreme Court has told us is to look at the function that the conduct was performed to accomplish."
The city maintains it cannot be held liable because it could not control the actions of the driver, Landen Glass, whose truck hit and killed Brooks.
During Wednesday's hearing, Miller described the case as one centered on "negligent event planning, negligent safety review, negligent crowd management, negligent operational coordination, and the foreseeable interaction of vehicles and children in the same parade footprint."
Choi argued that the plaintiffs are asking the court to depart from established precedent.
"What we believe the plaintiff is trying to do is to get the court to strain the balance of longstanding law and defy the well-established precedent and really take us into territories the law has never been," he said.
Collins said he intends to thoroughly review the filings.
"Once I rule, I can get an order done reasonably quickly because I notice it needs to be addressed as expeditiously as possible. And I will do that," the judge said.
UNC law professor Kate Sablosky Elengold said Collins will need to sort through complex questions about immunity.
"It sounds like there are arguments being made on both sides about these offshoots of the idea of immunity. Was it proprietary or was it governmental? Was this person acting within the scope of their employment? Were they not? Those things are all fact-based inquiries a judge will have to determine," she said.
Collins is reviewing the arguments and written briefs. As of Wednesday, there is no indication of when he will issue a ruling.
