215 N.C. App. 135
N.C. Ct. App.2011Background
- Residents of Randolph County sue City of Thomasville and others after sewage backup caused extensive home damage on 10 Aug 2009; DeVere Construction built a new Randolph County school in Trinity and City of Thomasville may have been involved in sewer system preparation for future operation; Thomasville sought dismissal arguing governmental immunity; plaintiffs alleged City engaged in sewer construction related to the new school to take over operation; trial court granted dismissal under Rule 12(b)(1)/(b)(6) and quashed subpoenas; court considers whether Thomasville was engaged in governmental vs proprietary function and whether immunity or negligence claim survive; court ultimately reverses immunity ruling but affirms dismissal for failure to state a claim
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Immunity and function type | Thomasville waived immunity by insurance or proprietary function | Thomasville entitled to governmental immunity unless proprietary function proven | Immunity not clearly waived; ambiguity on proprietary function; remanded? (court concludes Army) |
| Proprietary vs governmental function (sewer system) | Thomasville's involvement in construction of Trinity sewer system shows proprietary function | Sewer work may be governmental; need more facts to decide | Record insufficient to determine proprietary function; issue not dispositive to dismissal of negligence claim here |
| Failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) | Thomasville had a duty in sewer system construction causing damages | Plaintiffs fail to allege duty or breach; no control over sewer system | Claim dismissed for failure to state a claim; affirm dismissal |
| Interlocutory appeal jurisdiction | Quashing subpoenas and 12(b)(1)/(b)(6) dismissal appealable | Interlocutory orders appealable when immunity affects substantial right | Interlocutory appeal proper; Court reviews issues II and III |
Key Cases Cited
- Britt v. City of Wilmington, 236 N.C. 446, 73 S.E.2d 289 (1952) (1952) (distinguishes governmental vs proprietary functions and public purpose under municipal immunity)
- Pulliam v. City of Greensboro, 103 N.C.App. 748, 407 S.E.2d 567 (1991) (1991) (sewer service by municipality can be proprietary; immunity may not apply)
- Metz v. City of Asheville, 150 N.C. 748, 64 S.E. 881 (1909) (1909) (sewer system immunity historical basis)
- Roach v. City of Lenoir, 44 N.C.App. 608, 261 S.E.2d 299 (1980) (1980) (sewer-related governmental/proprietary analysis)
- McCombs v. City of Asheboro, 6 N.C.App. 234, 170 S.E.2d 169 (1969) (1969) (early adoption of governmental-proprietary distinction)
- Geo. A. Hormel & Co. v. City of Winston-Salem, 263 N.C. 666, 140 S.E.2d 362 (1965) (1965) (duty where municipality adopts control over third-party work)
- Wilkerson v. Norfolk S. Ry. Co., 151 N.C.App. 332, 566 S.E.2d 104 (2002) (2002) (control prerequisite to liability in absence of duty)
- Estate of Mullis by Dixon v. Monroe Oil Co., 349 N.C. 196, 505 S.E.2d 131 (1998) (1998) (duty standards and foreseeable risk principles)
- Oates v. JAG, Inc., 314 N.C. 276, 333 S.E.2d 222 (1985) (1985) (prima facie duty/breach framework for negligence)
- Laster v. Francis, 199 N.C.App. 572, 681 S.E.2d 858 (2009) (2009) (Rule 12(b)(6) testing standard for negligence claims)