STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DURHAM COUNTY SHELVIA UNDERWOOD, Plaintiff, v. A, TALLMAN TRASK AND DUKE. UNIVERSITY, Defendants. COMES NOW, the Plaintiff, by and through the undersigned, complaining of the Defendants, and alleges and says: NATURE OF THE CASE This complaint alleges thet the actions of the Defendants, more particularly described herein below, constitute multiple violations of the common law of North Carolina, to wit: Battery; Negligence; Civil Conspiracy; and Obstruction of Justice, Plaintiff socks damages, including, but not limited to, compensatory damages and pain and suffering as a result of the intentional and malicious conduct by Defendants as more fully described below. Plaintiff also seeks punitive damages for the willful and wanton conduct of the Defendants,PARTIES AND JURISDICTION . Shelvia Underwood (“Plaintiff”) is, and at all times relevant to this Complaint was, a citizen and resident of Raleigh, Wake County, North Carolina, . Upon information and belief, Tallman Trask (“Defendant”) is, and at all times relevant to this Complaint was, a citizen and resident of Durham, Durham County, North Carolina. |. Upon information and telief, Duke University (“Defendant”) is an educational, research and healthcare institution and a North Carolina nonprofit located in Durham, Durham County, North Carolina ‘This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action under the common law of North Carolina and pursuant to the judicial power vested in the General Court of Justice by N.C.GS. §§ 7A-3, 7A-240, and 7A-243, .. Venue is proper pursuant to N.C.G.S.§ 1-77 and 1-79, as Durham County is the county in which the actions taken against Plaintiff arose and is the county in which Defendants reside. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS ». MeLaurin Parking and Transportation Management is contracted by Defendant Duke University to provide parking and traffic related services for events on Duke University. . Plaintiff is employed by McLaurin Parking and Transportation Management as a Traffic Control Officer. . On or about August 30, 2014, Plaintiff was working the Duke vs, Elon football game in her capacity of Traffic Control Officer. While working her post on the upper Chapel Drive circle, a white male driving a Porsche approached Plaintiff's area with the intent of gaining access to the West Campus Quad.10, Upon information and belief, the driver of the Porsche previously drove by Traffic Control Officer Jackson Langley and ignored Mr. Langley’s attempts to stop his vehicle. 11, The driver of the Porsche was later identified as Tallman Trask, the Executive Vice President of Defendant Duke University. The Plaintiff did not know Defendant Trask, 12, At the time Defendant Trask approached Plaintiff's post, Plaintiff was standing in the middle of the road assisting a pedestrian. In an effort to maintain control and ensure the safety of her assigned area, Plaintiff placed her hand up and signaled the driver to stop in order to prevent his entrance to the West Campus Quad. 13. Plaintiff proceeded to finish assisting the pedestrian prior to addressing Defendant Trask. 14, Before Plaintiff could address Defendant Trask, Plaintiff was struck by Defendant Trask’s vehicle. 15. Plaintiff landed on the hood of Defendant Trask’s vehicle as it continued its forward progress. 16. Afraid that Defendant Trask’s vehicle was not going to stop, Plaintiff jumped off the hood of Defendant's vehicle. 17. After picking herself up off the ground, Plaintiff looked at the driver and exclaimed, “Really sir? Really?” 18, Plaintiff hopped to the window and asked to see Defendant Trask’s permit. 19, Defendant Trask was nonresponsive to Plaintiff's inquiries. 20. Plaintiff asked Defendant Trask, “Are you here for the wedding?” Again Defendant ‘Trask was nonresponsive, 21, Plaintiff then stated, “If you don’t have a permit sir, this road is closed.”22, Defendant Trask banged his hands on the steering wheel while gritting his teeth and yelled, “This road is not closed!” 23, Plaintiff stated, “Sir, this road is closed if you do not have a pass.” Defendant Trask then yelled again, “This road is not closed,” and continued to bang on his steering wheel 24. Plaintiff then told Mr. Trask, “Sir, I’m not going to deal with you,” and proceeded to request police assistance over her radio unit, 2, Before Plaintiff could complete the request, Defendant Trask yelled, “1 do have a pass,” and held up two (2) parking permits. 26. Upon seeing the permits, Plaintiff said, “Well there you go.” In response, Mr. Trask angrily yelled, “dumb, stupid, dumb, stupid nigger,” as he sped off. 27, Plaintiff's supervisors Meredith McLaurin and Greg Alston heard Plaintiff broadcast over the radio unit that she had been struck by a vehicle. 28, Mr. Alston responded to Plaintiff's location, and upon receiving a partial license plate number from Plaintiff was able to locate the vehicle matching the description. 29, Ms. McLaurin reported the incident to Captain Shannan Tiffin of the Duke University Police Department at approximately 19:20 hours. 30. Upon information and belief, despite Captain Tiffin running the license plate number through the parking services database and ascertaining that the vehicle which struck Plaintiff was owned by Defendant Trask, no attempts were made to locate or contact Defendant Trask on the day of the incident, 31. On or about September 1, 2014, Plaintiff went to the emergency department because of the pain she was feeling in her arm. A doctor diagnosed Ms. Underwood with a muscle contusion and possible fractured elbow.32. On or about September 1, 2014, Plaintiff received a phone call from Duke University Police Department's Detective Holland requesting that she call him, 33. On or about September 2, 2014, Ms. Underwood retuned Detective Holland’s phone call and stated that she wanted a report taken about the incident. 34, Detective Holland instructed Plaintiff to come to the Duke University Police Department 80 that he could take the report. 35. On or about September 3, 2014, Plaintiff met with Detective Holland and shared the details of the incident with him. Upon conclusion of the conversation, Detective Holland stated that Plaintiff would need to return the next day to sign the report. 36. Upon information and belief, Duke University Police Department is supervised by Vice President of Administration Kyle Cavanaugh, who is direotly supervised by Defendant Trask. 37. Despite the aforementioned supervisory structure, the Duke University Police Department was the body tasked with investigating Plaintiff's criminal complaint against Defendant Trask. 38. Upon information and belief, the Duke University Police Department never interviewed Defendant Trask in connection with the incident, 39. On or about September 3, 2014, Plaintiff's supervisor, Meredith McLaurin, sent an email to Captain Shannan Tiffin of the Duke University Police Department expressing concems about the incident and Dr. Trask’s behavior.40. In the aforementioned email, Ms. McLaurin stated, “I realize his position at the University may prohibit any action being taken, however, it is important that he understands that if he would just say ‘I’m Dr. Trask and need to access the Allen building,’ we would have let him down Chapel Drive without issue.” 41. On or about September 3, 2014, Plaintiff received a phone call from Steve McLaurin, the owner of McLaurin Parking and Transportation, who stated Defendant Duke University ‘was inquiring about how he was going to handle the situation. 42. On or about September 4, 2014, Plaintiff retumed to the Duke University Police Department to meet with Detective Holland and sign a copy of the police report. 43. During that mecting, Detective Holland inquired about Plaintiff's willingness to drop the matter if Defendant Trask apologized. 4, Plaintiff reluctantly indicated she would be willing to drop the matter if she received a legitimate and sincere apology from Defendant Trask. 45, Detective Holland instructed Plaintiff to sign a document that stated that if she received a legitimate and sincere apology from Dr. Trask, there would be no need for Duke University Police Department to continue their investigation and Plaintiff would drop the matter. 46. Initially, the Duke University Police Department declined to provide Plaintiff with a copy of the police report she had filed when the report was requested, 47. An incomplete copy of the report was finally provided to Plaintiff after Plaintif?'s persistent inquiries,48. Upon information and belief, Duke University Police Department’s Chief of Police has stated the department is not required to provide full copies of reports to those who bring complaints because they are a private agency. 49. On or about September 20, 2014, Plaintiff was working her usual post when she was approached by a man later identified as Kyle Cavanaugh, 50. Mr. Cavanaugh briefly engaged Plaintiff and stated, “Hi, I’m Kyle Cavanaugh. I’m not sure what happened out here but whatever. Here you go.” Mr, Cavanaugh then handed Plaintiff an envelope with a notecard enclosed and continued walking away. 51. The notecard stated, “I very much regret the incident before the Elon Football game. | should have been more patient and I apologize. Tallman Trask.” 52. Defendant Trask failed to step out of his vehicle and ensure Plaintif?’s wellbeing after striking her with his vehicle, or offer an apology at the time of the incident. The impersonal apology offered by Defendant Trask, and the insensitive manner in which Mr, Cavanaugh delivered it was neither sincere nor legitimate, 53, The apology proffered by Defendant Trask through Mr. Cavanaugh failed to acknowledge the severity of his actions. 54, Plaintiff's complaints were also investigated by Defendant Duke University’s Office of Institutional Equity. 35. Upon information and belief, Defendant Duke University’s Office of Institutional Equity also absolved Defendant Trask of any wrongdoing, and failed to take action against him. aCLAIMS FOR RELIEF COUNT Battery) Defendant Trask 56, The allegations contained in paragraphs 1-55 are re-alleged and incorporated herein by reference. 57. Defendant Trask intended to cause and did cause a harmful contact with Plaintiff's person. Specifically, Defendant Trask struck Plaintiff with his vehicle. 458. Plaintiff did not consent to Defendant Trask’s act. 59. As compensation for the above-noted injuries and losses, Plaintiffs are entitled to recover compensatory damages from Defendant, in an amount in excess of Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000.00). 60. Furthermore, since Defendant Trask engaged in the aforesaid conduct with willful, wanton, and reckless disregard for the rights of Plaintiff, Plaintiff is eatitled to an award of punitive damages against Defendants in an amount to be determined by the trier of fact, COUNT (Negligence) Defendant Trask 61. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1-60 are re-alleged and incorporated herein by reference, 62. In the event that Plaintiff's claims do not give rise to a claim for relief under the theory of Battery, Plaintiff alleges, in the alternative, that Defendant was negligent. 63. Defendant Trask owed to the Plaintiff a duty of reasonable care under the circumstances, as every driver owes a duty to others to exercise reasonable care,64. Defendant Trask breached the duty owed to Plaintiff in one or more of the following manners: a. Defendant Trask failed to keep a proper lookout and keep the vehicle he was driving under proper control; Defendant Trask failed to act as a reasonably careful and prudent person would under the circumstances; Defendant Trask drove the vehicle in a careless and reckless manner so as te endanger the life of Plaintiff or another (N.C.G.S. § 20-140(b)); Defendant Trask drove that vehicle in a manner that constitutes reckless distegard to the rights and safety of Plaintiff (N.C.GS, § 20-140(a)); and Defendant Trask was otherwise negligent as will be shown through discovery and proven at the trial in this action, 65. Asa direct, sole and proximate cause of Defendant Trask’s negligence, the Plaintiff has been damaged. 66. Plaintiff's damages include but are not limited to, physical injuries, pain and suffering and mental anguish 67. As compensation for the above-noted injuries and losses, Plaintiff is entitled to recover compensatory damages from Defendant, in an amount in excess of Twenty-Five ‘Thousand Dollars ($25,000.00). 68. Furthermore, since Defendant engaged in the aforesaid conduct with willful, wanton, and reckless disregard for the rights of Plaintiff, Plaintiff is entitled to an award of punitive damages against Defendant in an amount to be determined by the trier of fact,Defendant Trask and Defendant Duke University 69, The allegations contained in paragraphs 1-68 are re-alleged and incorporated herein by reference. 70. By entering into an agresment which called upon Defendant Duke University, by and through its agents, to obstruct, impede, and hinder a complete and full criminal investigation in the unlawful manner described above. 71. More specifically, Defendants entered into an agreement and engaged in a common scheme to protect Defendant Trask’s position as Executive Vice President of Defendant Duke University, the pecuniary interests of Defendant Duke University, as well as the public image of Defendant Duke University. 72. Defendant Trask and Defendant Duke University willfully and maliciously conspired to injure the Plaintiff, and did, in fact, injure the Plaintiff by preventing Plaintiff from obtaining the full benefits of non-biased and impartial criminal and civil investigations. 73. Asa result of this conspiracy, as well as the unlawful acts that were committed in furtherance of said conspiracy, by Defendant Duke University and ite agents, Plaintiff was not afforded full and equal protection under the law. 74, As a direct and proximate result of the conspiracy herein described, the Plaintiff has been damaged. Among other things, the Plaintiff has experienced significant mental anguish and emotional distress. 75. Therefore, as a direct ané proximate result of the Defendants conspiring, Plaintiff hes ‘been damaged in an amount in excess of Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000.00). 1076, Furthermore, since Defendants engaged in the aforesaid conduct with willful, wanton, and reckless disregard for the rights of Plaintiff, Plaintiff is entitled to an award of punitive damages against Defendants in an amount to be determined by the trier of fact. Iv (Obstruction of Justice) Defendant Trask and Defendant Duke University 77. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1-76 are re-alleged and incorporated herein by reference. 78. Upon information and belief, Defendants, by and through its agents, engaged in conduct that obstructed, impeded, and hindered legal justice. 79. Upon information and belief, Defendants failed to perform a complete and full investigation of the incident between Defendant Trask and Plaintiff 80. Upon information and belief, Defendants, by and through its agents, pressured Plaintiff to discontinue the criminal investigation of Defendant Trask. 81. Upon information and belief, the investigation performed by Defendant Duke University’s police department was conducted in a manner to allow Defendant Trask to avoid civil and criminal liability. 82, Therefore, as a direct and proximate result of the Defendants obstruction of justice, Plaintiff has been damaged in an amount in exeess of Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000.00). 83. Furthermore, since Defendant engaged in the aforesaid conduct willfully, wantonly, and with reckless disregard for the rights of Plaintiff, Plaintiff is entitled to an award of punitive damages against Defendant in an amount to be detemnined by the trier of fact. ulPRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff respectfully prays that: 1, As to Count I of this Complaint, Plaintiff have and recover of the Defendants compensatory and punitive damages in an amount in excess of $25,000.00. 2, Asto Count Il of this Complaint, Plaintiff have and recover of the Defendants compensatory and punitive damages in an amount in excess of $25,000.00. 3. Asto Count If of this Complaint, Plaintiff have and recover of the Defendants compensatory and punitive damages in an amount in excess of $25,000.00. 4. Asto Count IV of this Complaint, Plaintiff have and recover of thé Defendants compensatory and punitive damages in an amount in excess of $25,000.00. 5. Astoall appropriate Counts of this Complaint, Plaintiff have and recover reasonable attorneys’ fees from the Defendants. 6. As to all appropriate Counts of this Complaint, Plaintiff be awarded pre-judgment and post-judgment interest. 7. That the costs of this action be taxed against the Defendants, 8. That this case have a Trial By Jury on all issues s0 triable. 9. For such other and further relief as to the Court may scem just and proper. 12This the 14th day of March, 2016. Donald G. 5, Jr N.C. Bar No: 47819 James E. Hairston, Jr. N.C. Bar No: 19687 Attorneys for the Plaintiff 434 Fayetteville Street, Suite 2350 Raleigh, North Carolina 27601 (919) 838-5295 Telephone (888) 510-1160 Facsimile 13STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE, ‘SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION DURHAM COUNTY cvs SHELVIA UNDERWOOD, ) ) Plaintiff, y ) " } VERIFICATION OF ‘TALLMAN TRASK AND DUKE ) SHELVIA UNDERWOOD UNIVERSITY, ) ) Defendants. ) - 2 Plaintiff, Shelvia Underwood, having been duly swom, deposes and says that she is the Plaintiff in the foregoing action, that she has read the statements and factual allegetions in the Verified Complaint in this matter, and further verifies that the statements and factual allegations set forth therein are true based upon her memory, knowledge and belief. As to the matters set forth upon information and belief, she believes them to be true, NORTH CAROLINA COUNTY OF WAKE Sworn to and subscribed before me, this if day of March, 2016. a Notary Public My commission expires: _@- [> 2ORO (Seal)