White v. City Of Charlotte
| Decision Date | 26 February 1936 |
| Docket Number | No. 527.,527. |
| Citation | 183 S.E. 730,209 N.C. 673 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | WHITE . v. CITY OF CHARLOTTE et al. |
Appeal from Superior Court, Mecklenburg County; Alley, Judge.
Action by J. R. White, administrator of Sarah Elizabeth White, deceased, against the City of Charlotte and another. From an order overruling defendants' demurrer to the complaint, they appeal.
Affirmed.
This is an action to recover of the defendants damages for the death of plaintiff's intestate.
It is alleged in the complaint that the death of plaintiff's intestate was caused by the negligence of the defendant the city of Charlotte, a municipal corporation, and of the defendant Charlotte park and recreation commission, an agency of said city, created by its governing body, under statutory authority.
The defendants demurred to the complaint on the ground that the facts stated therein are not sufficient to constitute a cause of action on which the defendants or either of them is liable to the plaintiff, for that it appears from the allegations of the complaint that the injuries which resulted in the death of plaintiff's intestate were received by her while she was using a swing in a public park in the city of Charlotte which was maintained by the defendants in the performance of a governmental function.
The demurrer was overruled, and the defendants appealed to the Supreme Court, assigning as error the refusal of the court to sustain their demurrer.
Scarborough & Boyd, of Charlotte, for appellants.
John Newitt, of Charlotte, for appellee.
The facts alleged in the amended complaint in this action (see White v. City of Charlotte, 207 N.C. 721, 178 S.E. 219) are sufficient to constitute a cause of action on which the plaintiff is entitled to recover of the defendants, unless, as contended by the defendants, the injuries which resulted in the death of plaintiff's intestate were caused by the defendants while they were engaged in the performance of a governmental function. In that event, although the death of plaintiff's intestate was caused by the failure of the defendants to exercise reasonable care for her safety, the defendants are not liable to the plaintiff for damages resulting from her death. See Scales v. Winston-Salem, 189 N.C. 469, 127 S.E. 543. On the other hand, if the fatal injuries were caused by the defendants while engaged in the performance of a mere corporate function, the defendants are liable, notwithstanding their status as municipal...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brumley v. Baxter, 531.
...by this Court to be in the public interest and for a public purpose. Atkins v. Durham, 210 N.C. 295, 186 S.E. 330; White v. Charlotte, 209 N.C. 573, 575, 183 S.E. 730. In the Atkins case, the issuance of bonds for the acquisition of land for public parks and playgrounds in the City of Durha......
- Penley v. Penley, 16A84
-
Carolina Helicopter Corp. v. Cutter Realty Co., 244
... ... Dec. 16, 1964 ... Richard M. Welling, Charlotte, for plaintiff ... Grier, Parker, Poe & Thompson and James Y. Preston, Charlotte, ... was to be continuous or only a daytime operation; (8) who was to obtain permission from the City of Charlotte for operation of the service; and (9) what type of approval is available from the ... ...
-
Hitchings v. Albemarle Hospital
...of proximate cause, and the same is true of White v. City of Charlotte, 207 N.C. 721, 178 S.E. 219. In White v. City of Charlotte, 209 N.C. 573, 183 S.E. 730, at page 731, Justice Connor, "The facts alleged in the complaint in this action are not sufficient to determine as a matter of law w......