Bynum v. Wilson County
746 S.E.2d 296
N.C. Ct. App.2013Background
- Defendants Wilson County and Sleepy Hollow Development appeal a denial of summary judgment on governmental immunity grounds and, separately, challenge non-immunity issues; the court will address immunity only.
- Plaintiffs Lois Bynum and administratrix of James Earl Bynum’s estate allege injuries from fall on a Wilson County building used for paying a water bill.
- Court previously held in Bynum I that immunity issues could be reviewed on appeal; Sleepy Hollow’s appeal on non-immunity issues was dismissed.
- Factual record centers on Mr. Bynum’s injury exiting the county office building after paying a water bill at issue.
- Court determines operation of the county’s water system is a proprietary function, not immune from suit, and affirms denial of immunity-based summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Wilson County is immune from suit on governmental-immunity grounds | Bynum argues water-system-related injury is not governmental | Wilson County asserts governmental-immunity applies to building operation | No immunity; water system is proprietary. |
| Scope of appellate review for non-immunity claims | Bynum seeks merits on non-immunity issues | Wilson County/Sleepy Hollow urge merits review | Non-immunity claims dismissed; only immunity issue reviewed. |
| Whether the building’s operation fell within governmental or proprietary function | Injury arose from premises related to water bill processing | Operation of the building is governmental function | Function deemed proprietary; immunity does not apply. |
| Whether zoning/inspection or building-maintenance aspects change immunity outcome | Injury-related decisions, not zoning/inspection choices | Zoning/inspection are governmental functions | Not controlling; focus remains on water-system operation. |
| Impact of potential anomalies and policy concerns in applying the governmental/proprietary test | Court should consider broader liability for premises invites | Current doctrine yields inconsistent results | Court acknowledges anomalies but adopts legislature-driven approach. |
Key Cases Cited
- Fussell v. N.C. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., 364 N.C. 222 (N.C. 2010) (water systems; sale of water is proprietary)
- Mosseller v. City of Asheville, 267 N.C. 104 (N.C. 1966) (water system operated for private consumption; proprietary)
- Faw v. North Wilkesboro, 253 N.C. 406 (N.C. 1960) (public utilities; proprietary function when supplying water)
- Candler v. Asheville, 247 N.C. 398 (N.C. 1958) (public utilities; not purely governmental capacity)
- Robinson v. Nash County, 43 N.C. App. 33 (N.C. App. 1979) (governmental immunity for governmental function (register of deeds))
- Seibold v. Library, 264 N.C. 360 (N.C. 1965) (library operation governmental function)
- Lamm v. Bissette Realty, 327 N.C. 412 (N.C. 1990) (premises liability for business invitees; duty of care)
- Farrell v. Thomas and Howard Co., 204 N.C. 631 (N.C. 1933) (duty to keep premises reasonably safe for invitees)
- Koontz v. City of Winston-Salem, 280 N.C. 513 (N.C. 1972) (flexible governmental/proprietary doctrine; caution about changes by legislature)