Meinck v. City of GastoniaÂ
252 N.C. App. 312
| N.C. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- The City of Gastonia owned a downtown building at 212 W. Main Ave and leased it beginning 2013 to the private, non-profit Gaston County Art Guild to occupy as an art gallery, studios, and gift shop; the City retained exterior maintenance responsibility and inspection rights.
- The lease allocated multiple revenue streams to the City: 90% of subtenant rent, 30% of gross art sales by the Art Guild, 15% of subtenant gross sales, and volunteer-hour requirements; the City reported net losses overall but collected substantial receipts (~$21,500 each fiscal year).
- Plaintiff Meinck was a subtenant (artist) who paid monthly rent and sold art in the space; on Dec. 11, 2013 she fell on exterior exit steps while carrying large pictures and suffered a broken hip.
- Plaintiff sued the City for negligence—failure to maintain or warn of the dangerous exit condition. The City moved for summary judgment asserting governmental immunity (and contributory negligence); the trial court granted summary judgment on governmental immunity.
- The Court of Appeals reversed: it held the City’s ownership/maintenance of the leased building was a proprietary (not governmental) function and that material issues of fact existed on negligence and contributory negligence, so summary judgment was improper.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the City's maintenance/ownership of 212 W. Main Ave is a governmental or proprietary function for immunity purposes | Meinck: leasing and maintaining the building for a private non-profit, and receiving revenues, is a proprietary/commercial function (no immunity) | City: activity was part of downtown revitalization and a municipal function entitled to governmental immunity | Held: Proprietary — City's leasing/maintenance conferred pecuniary benefit and was commercial in nature, so immunity did not apply |
| Whether there is a genuine issue on City's negligence in maintaining the exit steps | Meinck: evidence (expert and City manager) shows steps failed code and City was responsible for exterior maintenance; raises triable issue | City: (summary judgment position) no liability due to immunity (and alternatively contributory negligence) | Held: Genuine issues of material fact exist on negligent maintenance/warning; summary judgment inappropriate |
| Whether Plaintiff was contributorily negligent as a matter of law | Meinck: using the only exit and carrying pictures was reasonable under the circumstances | City: Meinck had prior uses of exit and blocked view by carrying pictures, so contributory negligence bars recovery | Held: Not decided as matter of law for City — factual issues remain; summary judgment on contributory negligence was improper |
| Whether summary judgment was properly granted solely on governmental immunity | Meinck: trial court erred because immunity does not apply | City: alternatively argues contributory negligence supports affirmance under Rule 28(c) | Held: Trial court erred; immunity does not bar suit and alternative basis (contributory negligence) cannot be resolved as matter of law at summary judgment here |
Key Cases Cited
- Estate of Williams v. Pasquotank County, 366 N.C. 195 (2012) (framework for distinguishing governmental vs. proprietary functions)
- Evans ex rel. Horton v. Housing Auth., 359 N.C. 50 (2004) (governmental immunity applies to governmental functions)
- Koontz v. City of Winston-Salem, 280 N.C. 513 (1971) (resolving doubt against municipality on immunity)
- Glenn v. City of Raleigh, 246 N.C. 469 (1957) (municipal revenue-generating activities can constitute proprietary functions denying immunity)
- Britt v. City of Wilmington, 236 N.C. 446 (1952) (definitions of governmental vs. proprietary activities)
- Bynum v. Wilson County, 367 N.C. 355 (2014) (relevance of building use for government departments in immunity analysis)