Nichols v. Town Of Fountain
| Decision Date | 11 March 1914 |
| Citation | 80 S.E. 1059,165 N.C. 166 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | NICHOLS v. TOWN OF FOUNTAIN. |
A rural town of 150 inhabitants employing but one policeman was not liable for the death of an intoxicated person while in the lockup in the municipal building, caused by the destruction of such building by fire, though it employed no guard or watchman, since, if a municipality properly constructs and furnishes the prison and exercises ordinary care in providing the usual necessaries for the prisoner, it is not liable for the negligence of its officers to properly care for and administer to the wants of the prisoners.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Municipal Corporations, Cent. Dig. § 1550; Dec. Dig. § 734.*]
A municipality is not liable for the acts of its officers in the performance of purely governmental powers for the benefit of the public at large and not for its private benefit.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Municipal Corporations, Cent. Dig. §§ 1545, 1561, 1568; Dec. Dig. § 724.*]
Appeal from Superior Court, Pitt County; Whedbee, Judge.
Action by Henry P. Nichols, administrator of Edward S. Nichols, against the Town of Fountain. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
Harry Skinner and Albion Dunn, both of Greenville, for appellant.
F. G. James & Son and Moore & Long, all of Greenville, for appellee.
BROWN, J. [1] In their brief the learned counsel for plaintiff contend that his honor erred in granting defendant's motion of nonsuit:
(1) For that the testimony of plaintiff establishes an actionable cause of negligence against the defendant, in that it shows: (a) That the plaintiff's intestate was arrested in defendant town while in a state of intoxication, and was placed, while dead drunk, in defendant's town lockup, which said lockup was located in the second story of a wooden building, (b) That plaintiff's intestate was in an unconscious condition, and in said condition was locked in a cell, without the ability to protect himself from harm or escape from danger, (c) That the town authorities knew of said condition, (d) That, knowing said condition, the defendant failed to provide a night watchman or a guard to look after plaintiff's intestate and provide for him a means of escape in case of fire, (e) That while plaintiff's intestate was confined in said cell the said building was burned, and he being in a helpless condition and being locked in said cell, and the defendant not having a guard or watchman, by reason thereof plaintiff's said intestate was burned to death.
(2) That it was the duty of the town to provide a guard or watchman for one in the condition of plaintiff's intestate, and, failing to do so, defendant was guilty of gross negligence, for which it is liable in damages.
The evidence shows that the "town of Fountain" is a rural village of 150 inhabitants, with a municipal building of wood, the lower story used as a market house, and the upper as a courtroom with a lockup of two cells for prisoners. There was no building situated nearer than 50 feet. The town employs only one policeman. About 1 o'clock at night a fire broke out and destroyed the building and burned to death plaintiff's intestate. The origin of the fire is unknown.
The cases bearing upon the liability of municipalities for the torts of its officers are very numerous, and many nice distinctions are taken; but it seems to be quite well settled that they are not liable for the acts of their officers done in performance of purely governmental powers for the benefit of the public at large, and not for their private benefit; for otherwise it would be impossible to say where their liabilities would end, or howheavy would be the burdens of those who sustain their existence. This principle is very well stated by Shearman & Redfield, Negligence, § 253, and Dillon on Mun. Corp. 966-968; and is embodied in numerous judicial decisions in this and other states. A very learned and exhaustive discussion of the subject will be found in Mendel v....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rhyne v. Town of Mount Holly
...76 S.E. 232, 42 L.R.A.,N.S., 862; failure to provide an attendant at jail to protect prisoners against fire, Nichols v. Fountain, 165 N.C. 166, 80 S.E. 1059, 52 L.R.A., N.S., 942; Dixon v. Wake Forest, 224 N.C. 624, 31 S.E.2d 853; Gentry v. Hot Springs, 227 N.C. 665, 44 S.E.2d 85; negligenc......
-
Parson v. Texas City
...W.Va. 299, 12 S.E. 707, 11 L.R.A. 121. See also McAuliffe v. City of Victor, 15 Colo.App. 337, 62 P. 231; Nichols v. Town of Fountain, 165 N.C. 166, 80 S.E. 1059, 52 L.R.A.,N.S. 942; Lahner v. Incorporated Town of Williams, 112 Iowa 428, 84 N.W. In Baker v. City of Waco, supra, it was held ......
-
Brown v. City of Craig
... ... Waterbury, 74 ... Conn. 568; Wilson v. City of Portland, 58 P.2d 257; ... Bacon v. Town of Rocky Hill, 11 A.2d 401. (2) The ... immunity of municipal corporations from liability for acts ... 100; 46 A. L. R., l ... c. 103; McAuliffe v. Victor, 15 Colo.App. 337, 62 P ... 231; Nichols v. Fountain, 165 N.C. 166, 52 L. R. A ... (N. S.) 942, 80 S.E. 1059; Alvord v. Richmond, 3 ... ...
-
State ex rel. Hayes v. Billings
...Id., 118 N.C. 450, 24 S.E9 794, 36 L.R.A. 293; Coley v. City of Statesville, 121 N.C. 301, 28 S.E. 482; Nichols v. Town of Fountain, 165 N.C. 166 80 S.E. 1059, 52 L.R.A., N.S., 942; Hobbs v. City of Washington, 168 N.C. 293, 84 S.E. 391; Parks v. Town of Princeton, 217 N.C. 361, 8 S.E.2d 21......