Seibold v. City of Kinston, 360

Decision Date14 December 1966
Docket NumberNo. 360,360
Citation151 S.E.2d 654,268 N.C. 615
CourtNorth Carolina Supreme Court
PartiesLucille W. SEIBOLD v. CITY OF KINSTON and County of Lenoir.

Turner & Harrison, Kinston, for plaintiffappellant.

Wallace, Langley & Barwick, by F. E. Wallace, Jr., Kinston, for defendantappelleeCity of Kinston.

Whitaker, Jeffress & Morris, by A. H. Jeffress, Kinston, for defendantappelleeCounty of Lenoir.

PARKER, Chief Justice.

PLEA IN BAR OF GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY BY THE CITY OF KINSTON

AND THE COUNTY OF LENOIR

The city of Kinston is a municipal corporation.Municipal corporations have only those powers expressly conferred upon them by the General Assembly, and those necessarily implied from those expressly conferred, and those powers which are essential and indispensable to, and not merely convenient for, the accomplishment of the declared objects of the corporation.3 Strong's N.C. Index, Municipal Corporations, § 4, and the same section of Municipal Corporations in Supplement to Vol. 3 of Strong's N.C. Index.

G.S. § 160--191.1 reads as follows:

'The governing body of any incorporated city or town, by securing liability insurance as hereinafter provided, is hereby authorized and empowered, but not required, to waive its governmental immunity from liability for any damage by reason of death, or injury to person or property, Proximately caused by the negligent operation of any motor vehicle by an officer, agent or employee of such city or town when acting within the scope of his authority or within the course of his employment.Such immunity is waived only to the extent of the amount of the insurance so obtained.Such immunity shall be deemed to have been waived in the absence of affirmative action by such governing body.'(Emphasis ours.)

G.S. § 160--191.4 provides that a municipality may incur liability pursuant to this article only with respect to a claim arising after such city or such municipality has procured liability insurance pursuant to this article and during the time when such insurance is in force.G.S. § 160--191.5 reads as follows:

'No part of the pleadings which relate to or alleges facts as to a defendant's insurance against liability shall be read or mentioned in the presence of the trial jury in any action brought pursuant to this article.Such liability shall not attach unless the plaintiff shall waive the right to have all issues of law or fact relating to insurance in such an action determined by a jury and such issues shall be heard and determined by the judge without resort to a jury and the jury shall be absent during any motions, arguments, testimony or announcement of findings of fact or conclusions of law with respect thereto unless the defendant shall ask for a jury trial thereon.

'No plaintiff to an action brought pursuant to this article nor counsel, nor witness therefor, shall make any statement, ask any question, read any pleadings or do any other acts in the presence of the trial jury in such case so as to indicate to any member of the jury that the defendant's liability would be covered by insurance, and if such is done order shall be entered of mistrial.'

On 14 November 1963plaintiff instituted an action Ex delicto against the Kinston-Lenoir County Public Library, and against its Trustees, Thomas Hewitt, W. A. Allen, Alex Howard, T. J. Turner, Mrs. Wooten Moseley, and Mrs. John Roland, seeking damages for personal injuries on the ground that when descending the steps of the public library on 11 May 1962 the heel of her shoe became lodged in a crack in one of the steps causing her to fall.Defendants demurred because, as they alleged, it affirmatively appears that the library is a governmental agency, and the individual defendants are public officials performing a governmental duty.This came on for hearing on defendants' demurrer at the September 1964 Session of Lenoir.The demurrer was sustained, and plaintiff excepted and appealed.The decision in this case, filed 28 April 1965, and reported in 264 N.C. 360, 141 S.E.2d 519, held the operation of a public library is a governmental function, and its officers are protected against plaintiff's claim of tort liability, and affirmed the judgment entered below.The instant case is to recover damages for the same fall as in her former case, and the allegations of fact in her complaint in respect to her fall are substantially the same as in the instant case.

Governmental immunity of the city of Kinston applies, under such circumstances as presented in the instant case, unless waived by the city of Kinston under the provisions of G.S. § 160--191.1 et seq., and then such immunity is waived only to the extent of the insurance so obtained and in force at the time.G.S. § 160--191.1;Clark v. Scheld, 253 N.C. 732, 117 S.E.2d 838;Moore v. Plymouth, 249 N.C. 423, 106 S.E.2d 695;29 N.C. Law Rev. 421.

The provisions of G.S. § 160--191.1 provide that the city of Kinston is authorized and empowered, but not required, to waive its governmental immunity from liability for any damage by reason of death, or injury to person or property, Proximately caused by the negligent operation of any motor vehicle by an officer, agent or employee of such city, etc.The General Assembly of North Carolina has not authorized and empowered the city of Kinston to waive its governmental immunity from liability for any injury to a person proximately caused by the negligent operation of the Kinston-Lenoir County Public Library.Further, in the hearing of the pleas in bar by Judge Bundy, there is no evidence of any liability insurance policy purchased by the city of Kinston.The plea in bar of the city of Kinston of governmental immunity is good, as Judge Bundy held in his judgment.

In Keenan v. Commissioners, 167 N.C. 356, 83 S.E. 556, it is said: 'It is well settled that counties are instrumentalities of government, and are given corporate powers to execute their purposes, and are not liable for damages for the torts of their officials in the absence of statutory provisions giving a right of action against them.'

G.S. § 153--9(44) provides:

'The board of county commissioners of any county, by securing liability insurance as hereinafter provided, is hereby authorized and empowered to waive the county's governmental immunity from liability for damage by reason of death, or injury to person or property, Caused by the negligence or tort of the county or by the negligence or tort of any official or employee of such...

To continue reading

Request your trial

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions

  • AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions

  • AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions

  • AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions

  • AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions

  • AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions

  • AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

vLex
9 cases
  • Perry v. Pamlico Cnty.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of North Carolina
    • 16 Febrero 2015
    ...against Pamlico County (including the official-capacity claims against Johnson and Strag). See, e.g., Seibold v. City of Kinston, 268 N.C. 615, 621–23, 151 S.E.2d 654, 658–59 (1966) ; Owen v. Haywood Cnty., 205 N.C.App. 456, 460–61, 697 S.E.2d 357, 360 (2010) ; Estate of Earley, 204 N.C.App......
  • Bynum v. Wilson Cnty.
    • United States
    • North Carolina Court of Appeals
    • 18 Junio 2013
    ...owned building. E.g. Hayes v. Billings, 240 N.C. 78, 80, 81 S.E.2d 150, 152 (1954) (county jail); Seibold v. Kinston, 268 N.C. 615, 620–21, 151 S.E.2d 654, 658 (1966) (public library); Doe v. Jenkins, 144 N.C.App. 131, 134, 547 S.E.2d 124, 127 (2001) (county courthouse), disc. review denied......
  • State v. Kirby
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • 6 Enero 1970
    ...S.Ct. 1443, 16 L.Ed.2d 531. When no error appears on the face of the record proper, the judgment will be affirmed. Seibold v. City of Kinston, 268 N.C. 615, 151 S.E.2d 654. We have searched the record for prejudicial error without Defendant's failure to perfect his appeal in conformity with......
  • State v. Lindley
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • 11 Diciembre 1974
    ...145 S.E.2d 335 (1965). When error does not appear on the face of the record proper, the judgment will be affirmed. Seibold v. Kinston, 268 N.C. 615, 151 S.E.2d 654 (1966). The evidence in a case is no part of the record proper, and defects appearing only by the aid of evidence cannot be the......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT