Broome v. City of Charlotte

• Decision Date: 20 November 1935
• Docket Number: 530.
• Parties: BROOME v. CITY OF CHARLOTTE.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

182 S.E. 325

208 N.C. 729

BROOME v. CITY OF CHARLOTTE.

No. 530.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

November 20, 1935

Appeal from Superior Court, Mecklenburg County; Harding, Judge.

Action by F. A. Broome, administrator of the estate of F. A. Broome Jr., against the City of Charlotte. From a judgment overruling defendant's demurrer, the defendant appeals.

Reversed.

For purposes of demurrer, facts set out in complaint are deemed to be true.

This was an action by the administrator of the estate of F. A Broome, Jr., against city of Charlotte to recover damages for alleged wrongful death of plaintiff's intestate.

The complaint alleges that on October 3, 1934, plaintiff's intestate, a child four years of age, was struck and killed by a trash wagon or truck of defendant.

"3. That the city of Charlotte, through its mayor and members of its governing body and its business manager, and through its servants, agents, employees and personal representatives willfully, wantonly, deliberately and without any notice to the parents of said infant, and without being requested by said infant's parents, sent and directed, and caused to be sent and directed the driver or drivers of one of its trash wagons or trucks into the back yard of the parents of the aforesaid infant, not for the purpose, as this plaintiff is informed, believes and alleges, of gathering trash, but drove off Ordermore drive, one of the much used thoroughfares of the city of Charlotte and county of Mecklenburg, and into the yard of the parents of the aforesaid infant as a matter of convenience to said defendant, in order to turn the trash wagon or truck around in order to go in an opposite direction, and not at the request or for any benefit to the parents of the infant child, or for any benefit to said plaintiff's intestate."

And the plaintiff prays that he recover both actual and punitive damages therefor.

Defendant demurred to the complaint, and from judgment overruling its demurrer, defendant appealed.

Scarborough & Boyd, of Charlotte, for appellant.

Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick and C. A. Duckworth, all of Charlotte, for appellee.

DEVIN Justice.

The defendant demurred to the complaint on the ground that it did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. For the purposes of the demurrer, the facts set out in the complaint are deemed to be true. This requires a careful examination of the complaint to determine its legal effect.

The recognized doctrine in this jurisdiction is that a municipal corporation may not be held civilly liable to individuals for the negligence of its agents in performing duties which are governmental in their nature and solely for the public benefit. Harrington v. Greenville, 159 N.C. 632, 75 S.E. 849; James v. Charlotte, 183 N.C. 630, 112 S.E 423; Snider v. High Point, 168 N.C. 608, 85 S.E. 15.

In its public or governmental character, a municipal corporation acts as agent of the state for the better government of that portion of its people who...