Horne ex rel. Heintzelman v. Town of Blowing Rock
732 S.E.2d 614
N.C. Ct. App.2012Background
- Blowing Rock Park, a municipal recreation area, is operated by the Town of Blowing Rock, NC.
- Plaintiffs allege minor Parker Home was injured when he stepped into a drain hole obscured by overgrown grass in the park on June 20, 2011.
- Plaintiffs claim defendant failed to inspect, warn of hidden hazards, and properly maintain grass around the drain hole.
- Plaintiffs seek medical costs for the minor and damages for pain and suffering; they argued defendant waived immunity by purchasing liability insurance.
- Defendant moved to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1), 12(b)(6), and 12(c); attached insurance endorsement and an adjuster’s affidavit as support.
- The trial court converted the 12(c) motion into a Rule 56 summary judgment motion, granting partial summary judgment on the insurance-immunity waiver issue and denying the remainder.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Interlocutory appealability of 12(b)(1) denial | Davis and Data Gen. Corp. control: 12(b)(1) denial not appealable. | Appealable for sovereign-immunity-based dispositive rulings. | Interlocutory review limited; cannot review 12(b)(1) denial, but may review 12(b)(6) or 12(c) rulings on immunity. |
| Whether the 12(c) motion was properly converted to summary judgment | Conversion was improper; the document record did not warrant summary judgment. | Affidavit and attached documents outside pleadings justify conversion to summary judgment. | Conversion proper; the court could consider outside materials and convert to summary judgment. |
| Whether defendant is entitled to governmental immunity as a matter of law | Park operation is governmental; no evidence shows the park operated as a proprietary function or earned revenue. | Park operation may be proprietary or governmental; revenue/income factors must be considered per Williams framework. | Material questions about revenue/income remain; summary judgment on immunity was not proper on this record. |
Key Cases Cited
- Glenn v. City of Raleigh, 246 N.C. 469, 98 S.E.2d 913 (1957) (1957) (income from park can destroy government immunity)
- Rich v. City of Goldsboro, 282 N.C. 383, 192 S.E.2d 824 (1972) (1972) (proprietary function if city earns income from operation)
- Minor v. Minor, 70 N.C. App. 76, 318 S.E.2d 865 (1984) (1984) (affidavits treated as matters outside pleadings for Rule 12(c))
- Groves v. Community Hous. Corp., 144 N.C. App. 79, 548 S.E.2d 535 (2001) (2001) (Rule 12(c) motion treated as summary judgment when affidavits present)
- Lambert v. Cartwright, 160 N.C. App. 73, 584 S.E.2d 341 (2003) (2003) (pleadings and attached exhibits may be considered in Rule 12(c) rulings)
- Davis v. Dibartolo, 176 N.C. App. 142, 625 S.E.2d 877 (2006) (2006) (denial of 12(b)(6) based on sovereign immunity is immediately appealable)
- Data Gen. Corp. v. Cnty. of Durham, 143 N.C. App. 97, 545 S.E.2d 243 (2001) (2001) (denial of 12(b)(1) not immediately appealable)
- Owen v. Haywood County, 205 N.C. App. 456, 697 S.E.2d 357 (2010) (2010) (interlocutory review of summary judgment on immunity)