Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Rich Ex Rel. Taylor v. City of Goldsboro
Citations: 192 S.E.2d 824; 282 N.C. 383; 1972 N.C. LEXIS 966Docket: 65
Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina; December 13, 1972; North Carolina; State Supreme Court
The Supreme Court of North Carolina addressed the liability of the City of Goldsboro for damages resulting from the negligent maintenance of playground equipment in Herman Park. The court emphasized that municipal corporations generally enjoy immunity from negligence claims related to governmental functions, but can be held liable if the acts are proprietary in nature. The decision referenced prior cases, underscoring that a municipality's liability depends on whether the activity involved a special corporate benefit or pecuniary profit. The court noted that while previous cases suggested potential liability for negligent maintenance in public parks, they ultimately affirmed nonsuit judgments when municipalities were acting in their governmental capacity. In this instance, the evidence indicated that Goldsboro's income from the Kiwanis Club donation was minimal, constituting less than one percent of the park's operating costs, which the court deemed insufficient to classify the operation of Herman Park as a proprietary function. Thus, the trial court's conclusion that the city was acting in its governmental capacity, and therefore immune from suit, was upheld. The operation of Pullen Park was determined to be a proprietary function of the City of Raleigh, thereby removing its claim to governmental immunity due to the financial benefits derived from the park. In the case of Glenn, evidence indicated that the city treated the park as a business rather than fulfilling a governmental role. The court referenced James v. Charlotte, noting that charging fees for services does not inherently negate governmental immunity unless the city engages in profit-driven activities. In the current action, a $1,200 donation from the Kiwanis Club, considered "incidental income," was deemed insufficient to waive Goldsboro's governmental immunity. North Carolina maintains the doctrine of governmental immunity, with limited exceptions not applicable here. G.S. 160A-485 allows cities to waive immunity through liability insurance, but this applies only to motor vehicle operations, not playground maintenance. The court found no precedent to support Goldsboro's waiver of immunity based on the Kiwanis donation related to the Kiddie Train. The Superior Court of Wayne County correctly granted summary judgment for Goldsboro, as there were no significant factual disputes, leading to the reversal of the North Carolina Court of Appeals' decision.