The North Carolina Supreme Court has given a family the green light to sue their school district after a boy was forcibly vaccinated with a Covid mRNA injection without parental consent.
This from slaynews.com.
The state high court ruled that a mother and her son can file a lawsuit against the public school system and a doctors’ group over the forced “vaccine.”
The ruling reverses a lower-court decision that a federal health emergency law prevented Emily Happel and her son Tanner Smith from filing a lawsuit.
Slay News reported:
Both a trial judge and the state Court of Appeals had ruled against the two.
The family sought litigation after Smith received an unwanted “vaccine” during the pandemic.
According to the family’s lawsuit, Smith was vaccinated in August 2021 at age 14 despite his opposition at a testing and vaccination clinic at a Guilford County high school.
The lawsuit says the teenager went to the clinic to be tested for COVID-19 after several cases among members of his school’s football team.
He did not anticipate the clinic would also be administering vaccines.
The teen told staff at the clinic that he did not want a vaccination.
He also did not have a signed parental consent form to receive one.
Happel and Smith claim:
But when the clinic was unable to reach his mother, a worker instructed a colleague to ‘give it to him anyway.’
Happel and Smith filed the lawsuit against the Guilford County Board of Education and the Old North State Medical Society, an organization of physicians who helped operate the school clinic.
The mother and son made accusations of battery and alleged that their constitutional rights were violated.
Last year, a panel of the intermediate-level appeals court ruled unanimously that the federal Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act shielded the school district and the physicians’ group from liability.
The law places broad protections and immunity on various people and organizations who perform “countermeasures” during a public health emergency.
An emergency declaration in response to COVID-19 was made in March 2020, activating the federal law’s immunity provisions, the state’s high court noted in its ruling.
Chief Justice Paul Newby wrote in the prevailing opinion:
[T]he law did not prevent the mother and son from suing on allegations that their rights in the state constitution had been violated.
The judge said:
[A] parent has the right to control their child’s upbringing and the ‘right of a competent person to refuse forced, nonmandatory medical treatment.’
Newby wrote:
[T]he law’s plain text prompted a majority of justices to conclude that its immunity only covers tort injuries, which is when someone seeks damages for injuries caused by negligent or wrongful actions.
Further:
Because tort injuries are not constitutional violations, the PREP Act does not bar plaintiffs’ constitutional claims.
The court’s conservative justices backed Newby’s opinion.
Two of the conservative justices wrote a separate opinion suggesting the immunity found in the federal law should be narrowed further.
Associate Justice Allison Riggs, a liberal, wrote a dissenting opinion.
Riggs said:
State constitutional claims should be preempted from the federal law.
She also criticized the court’s majority for a “fundamentally unsound” interpretation of the Constitution.
Riggs said:
Through a series of dizzying inversions, it explicitly rewrites an unambiguous statute to exclude state constitutional claims from the broad and inclusive immunity.
And Riggs certainly made herself understandable there.
