Bynum v. Wilson County
367 N.C. 355
| N.C. | 2014Background
- Wilson County leased a multi-use office building on Miller Road housing county departments (water, planning, inspections, finance, HR, county manager, commissioners meeting room) and open to the public.
- On April 15, 2008, James Earl Bynum visited the building to pay a water bill, fell on the front steps leaving the building, and was paralyzed; he later died and his wife continued the suit as administratrix and individually.
- Plaintiffs sued Wilson County (and Sleepy Hollow Development Company) alleging negligent inspection, maintenance, building-code violations, and failure to install a required handrail; they sought damages including wrongful death.
- The County moved for summary judgment asserting governmental immunity; trial court denied the motion and the County appealed limited to immunity issues; the Court of Appeals affirmed denial on immunity grounds.
- The Supreme Court reviewed de novo whether the County’s operation/maintenance of the building was a governmental (immune) or proprietary (no immunity) function and reversed the Court of Appeals, holding the County immune.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether governmental immunity bars tort claims for injuries on county office property | Bynum: visit to pay a water bill ties the injury to a proprietary function (water system), so immunity shouldn’t apply | County: operation, maintenance, and supervision of the county office building is a governmental function entitled to immunity | Held: immunity applies; County entitled to summary judgment on immunity grounds |
| Whether plaintiff’s purpose for being on the premises determines immunity | Bynum: court should examine the plaintiff’s reason for presence (paying water bill) to decide if function was proprietary | County: focus should be on the character of the governmental act, not the plaintiff’s subjective intent | Held: Court rejects plaintiff-focused test; the inquiry centers on the government’s act or service, not visitor’s purpose |
| Whether statutory assignment of duties to counties (maintenance/repair of county property) is dispositive | Bynum: argued operation of water service is proprietary despite statutory duties | County: legislature has assigned supervision/maintenance of county buildings to counties, making these governmental functions | Held: statutory designation is dispositive here; legislature’s assignment supports finding the function governmental |
Key Cases Cited
- Estate of Williams v. Pasquotank Cnty. Parks & Recreation Dep’t, 366 N.C. 195, 732 S.E.2d 137 (2012) (sets three-step test for governmental vs. proprietary functions)
- Evans ex rel. Horton v. Housing Auth. of City of Raleigh, 359 N.C. 50, 602 S.E.2d 668 (2004) (governmental immunity covers acts committed pursuant to governmental functions)
- Britt v. City of Wilmington, 236 N.C. 446, 73 S.E.2d 289 (1952) (distinguishes governmental from proprietary activities)
- Aaser v. City of Charlotte, 265 N.C. 494, 144 S.E.2d 610 (1965) (municipal ownership and commercial operation can support proprietary-liability analysis)
- Moffitt v. City of Asheville, 103 N.C. 191 (1889) (focus on character of municipal acts when determining liability)