Beach v. Town of Tarboro
| Decision Date | 28 February 1945 |
| Docket Number | 94 |
| Citation | 33 S.E.2d 64,225 N.C. 26 |
| Parties | BEACH v. TOWN OF TARBORO et al. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
This is a civil action to recover damages for personal injuries to the plaintiff alleged to have been caused by the negligence of the defendants. A judgment as of nonsuit was entered at the close of the plaintiff's evidence as to the defendant Brewer, from which no appeal was taken.
It is alleged by the plaintiff that she was a passenger in a taxicab owned by defendant Brewer which was in a collision with a truck owned by the defendant town, and that as a result thereof she received personal injuries.
It is not denied by the defendant town that the plaintiff received injuries from a collision between a taxicab in which she was a passenger and a truck of the defendant town operated by its employee, but liability for any negligent act of its employee is denied by it upon the ground that said act was performed in its behalf in the exercise of its governmental function.
The evidence of the plaintiff tends to show that the truck of the town involved in the collision under investigation was being operated by one Vernon Pitt, who testified as a witness for the plaintiff to the effect that he, Pitt, was employed by the town in the light and power department as service man, light repair and general maintenance for electric lights and street lighting; the town sells electricity to customers for lighting and heating purposes and that he read meters when he cut off or cut on customers that he got his instructions either at the power plant or the City Hall; that he was driving the truck from the power plant at the time of the collision, and was going to stop at the City Hall to see if anything urgent had happened before he went to put on the street lights he had on the truck; his first destination was the City Hall to find out if any emergency existed, he left the power plant with instructions to repair five overhead street lights, and was going to stop at the City Hall to see if any line had broken, or if anybody wanted lights cut on or off; he did not have any instructions to work on any commercial lines at this particular time, and there was none at the City Hall when he went there; it was necessary to follow the course he did to get to the City Hall, and when he left the power plant with instructions to repair five street lights he decided to go by the City Hall to see if there were any instructions in regard to emergencies; there was no difference in the course he pursued if he hadn't needed to go to the City Hall; he was using the truck he generally used about the city repairing any kind of electrical trouble; the town sold electricity to homes places of business and mills and had its own electricity connected with the streets and municipal hall; the town's biggest maintenance job is keeping lines clear and hanging transformers, it has lines that serve paying customers and lines that serve street lights. One George Earnhardt testified as a witness for the plaintiff to the effect that he is the City Clerk, and kept the records, and that the Town operates a power plant and Mr. Pitt's salary was paid from the utilities fund, line and repair operation, expense of the power plant.
When the plaintiff had introduced her evidence and rested her case, the defendant town moved to dismiss the action and for a judgment as in case of nonsuit, the motion was refused, and exception was preserved; when all the...
To continue reading
Request your trial