Bynum v. Wilson County

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA
No. 380PA13
FILED 12 JUNE 2014
LOIS EDMONDSON BYNUM, Individually, and LOIS EDMONDSON BYNUM,
Administratrix of the ESTATE OF JAMES EARL BYNUM and LOIS MARIE
BYNUM
v.
WILSON COUNTY and SLEEPY HOLLOW DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
On discretionary review pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-31 of a unanimous
decision of the Court of Appeals, ___ N.C. App. ___, 746 S.E.2d 296 (2013), affirming
in part an order denying summary judgment entered on 19 March 2012 by Judge
Milton F. Fitch, Jr. in Superior Court, Wilson County, and dismissing defendants’
appeals in part. Heard in the Supreme Court on 19 February 2014.
Thomas & Farris, P.A., by Albert S. Thomas, Jr., Allen G. Thomas, and Kurt
D. Schmidt; and Narron & Holdford, P.A., by Ben L. Eagles, for plaintiff-
appellees.
Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, LLP, by Burley B. Mitchell, Jr. and Robert
T. Numbers, II; and Teague Campbell Dennis & Gorham, LLP, by Henry W.
Gorham, Carrie E. Meigs, and Leslie P. Lasher, for defendant-appellants.
Amy Bason, General Counsel, for North Carolina Association of County
Commissioners, amicus curiae.
Kimberly S. Hibbard, General Counsel, and Gregory F. Schwitzgebel, III,
Senior Assistant General Counsel, North Carolina League of Municipalities;
and Dorothy K. Leapley, Deputy City Attorney, City of Raleigh, for North
Carolina League of Municipalities, amicus curiae.
Angela I. Carmon, Attorney for the City of Winston-Salem; and William L.
Brown, Town Attorney for the Towns of Cramerton and Cornelius, amici
curiae.
BYNUM V. WILSON CNTY.
Opinion of the Court
Roger A. Askew, Deputy County Attorney, and Scott W. Warren, County
Attorney, for Wake County; John L. Roberts, Orange County Attorney’s Office,
for Orange County; Huey Marshall, Attorney for Brunswick County; Debra
Bechtel, Attorney for Catawba County; Wanda Copley, Attorney for New
Hanover County; R. Michael Cox, Attorney for Pasquotank County, and C.
Ronald Aycock, Attorney for Person County, amici curiae.
JACKSON, Justice.
In this appeal we consider whether governmental immunity bars plaintiffs’
claims alleging that defendant Wilson County (“the County”) negligently failed to
inspect and maintain a county office building. Because the County’s operation of
the building is governmental in nature, we hold that plaintiffs’ claims against the
County are barred by governmental immunity. Accordingly, we reverse the decision
of the Court of Appeals.
On 1 November 2006, the County entered into an agreement with Sleepy
Hollow Development Company (“Sleepy Hollow”) to lease an office building on
Miller Road. The County housed a number of its departments and divisions in the
Miller Road building, including the county commissioners meeting room, the
planning department, the inspections department, the water department, the
finance department, the human resources department, and the office of the county
manager. The building was open to the public. On 15 April 2008, James Earl
Bynum visited the Miller Road building to pay his water bill. Mr. Bynum walked
up the front exterior steps to the building, went to the second floor, and paid his bill.
-2-
BYNUM V. WILSON CNTY.
Opinion of the Court
As he was leaving, he fell while walking down the front steps. As a result of his
injuries, Mr. Bynum’s legs and right arm were paralyzed.
On 9 December 2008, Mr. Bynum filed a complaint against the County
alleging that he had been injured as a result of the County’s negligence.
Subsequently, Mr. Bynum amended the complaint to add his wife as a plaintiff and
Sleepy Hollow as a defendant. Plaintiffs alleged, inter alia, that defendants
negligently failed to inspect, maintain, and repair the Miller Road building steps,
failed to meet the requirements of the North Carolina Building Code, failed to
install a required handrail, failed to be aware of and warn of a hidden danger, and
failed to ensure that the Miller Road building was accessible to the public in a safe
condition. Plaintiffs further alleged that Mr. Bynum had been permanently injured
and paralyzed as a result of defendants’ negligence.
On 4 June 2010, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment asserting a
number of defenses, including governmental immunity. The trial court denied
defendants’ motion, and defendants appealed to the Court of Appeals. On 6
September 2011, the Court of Appeals issued an unpublished decision dismissing
the appeal as interlocutory as to all issues except the County’s assertion of
governmental immunity. Bynum v. Wilson Cnty., 215 N.C. App. 389, 716 S.E.2d 90,
2011 WL 3891361, at *5 (2011) (unpublished). The Court of Appeals allowed the
-3-
BYNUM V. WILSON CNTY.
Opinion of the Court
County’s motion to withdraw its appeal of the remaining issue because of an
inaccuracy in the record. Id.After Mr. Bynum’s death, Ms. Bynum continued the action both in her
individual capacity and as administratrix of his estate. On 23 December 2011,
plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to amend the complaint to assert a wrongful death
claim. The record does not contain an order allowing the amendment; however,
plaintiffs’ brief states that the amendment was allowed on 9 January 2012. On 16
February 2012, defendants again filed a motion for summary judgment, which the
trial court also denied. Defendants appealed. On 18 June 2013, the Court of
Appeals issued a unanimous opinion dismissing Sleepy Hollow’s appeal as
interlocutory and dismissing the County’s “non-immunity-related challenges” for
the same reason, but concluding that the trial court correctly denied the County’s
motion for summary judgment on the basis of governmental immunity. Bynum v.
Wilson Cnty., ___ N.C. App. ___, ___, 746 S.E.2d 296, 307 (2013) (“Bynum II”). The
court’s governmental immunity analysis focused primarily on Mr. Bynum’s
subjective purpose for being on the premises. Id. at ___, 746 S.E.2d at 304-05. On 3
October 2013, we allowed defendants’ petition for discretionary review.
A motion for summary judgment “shall be rendered forthwith if the
pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together
with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material
-4-
BYNUM V. WILSON CNTY.
Opinion of the Court
fact and that any party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” N.C.G.S. § 1A-
1, Rule 56(c) (2013). We review de novo the trial court’s order denying a motion for
summary judgment. Estate of Williams v. Pasquotank Cnty. Parks & Recreation
Dep’t, 366 N.C. 195, 198, 732 S.E.2d 137, 140 (2012) (citations omitted). “When
applying de novo review, we ‘consider[ ] the case anew and may freely substitute’
our own ruling for the lower court’s decision.” Lanvale Props., LLC v. Cnty. of
Cabarrus, 366 N.C. 142, 149, 731 S.E.2d 800, 806-07 (2012) (alteration in original)
(quoting Morris Commc’ns Corp. v. City of Bessemer City Zoning Bd. of Adjust., 365
N.C. 152, 156, 712 S.E.2d 868, 871 (2011)).
Plaintiffs argue that, because Mr. Bynum visited the Miller Road building to
pay his water bill, the complaint alleges negligence in connection with the County’s
operation of a water system, a proprietary function to which immunity does not
apply. We disagree.
Governmental immunity “turns on whether the alleged tortious conduct of
the county or municipality arose from an activity that was governmental or
proprietary in nature.” Estate of Williams, 366 N.C. at 199, 732 S.E.2d at 141.
Immunity applies to acts committed pursuant to governmental functions but not
proprietary functions. Id. (citing, inter alia, Evans ex rel. Horton v. Hous. Auth.,
359 N.C. 50, 53, 602 S.E.2d 668, 670 (2004)). Although the distinction may be
difficult to distinguish at times, we have explained:
-5-
BYNUM V. WILSON CNTY.
Opinion of the Court
Any activity of [a] municipality which is
discretionary, political, legislative, or public in nature and
performed for the public good in behalf of the State rather
than for itself comes within the class of governmental
functions. When, however, the activity is commercial or
chiefly for the private advantage of the compact
community, it is private or proprietary.
Britt v. City of Wilmington, 236 N.C. 446, 450, 73 S.E.2d 289, 293 (1952) (citation
omitted).
In Estate of Williams we set forth a three-step inquiry for determining
whether an activity is governmental or proprietary in nature. First, a court must
consider whether the legislature has designated the activity as governmental or
proprietary. Estate of Williams, 366 N.C. at 200-01, 732 S.E.2d at 141-42. Second,
“when an activity has not been designated as governmental or proprietary by the
legislature, that activity is necessarily governmental in nature when it can only be
provided by a governmental agency or instrumentality.” Id. at 202, 732 S.E.2d at
142. Finally,
when the particular service can be performed both
privately and publicly, the inquiry involves consideration
of a number of additional factors, of which no single factor
is dispositive. Relevant to this inquiry is whether the
service is traditionally a service provided by a
governmental entity, whether a substantial fee is charged
for the service provided, and whether that fee does more
than simply cover the operating costs of the service
provider.
Id. at 202-03, 732 S.E.2d at 143 (footnotes omitted).
-6-
BYNUM V. WILSON CNTY.
Opinion of the Court
The approach advanced by plaintiffs and adopted by the Court of Appeals
would base the availability of immunity upon “the nature of the plaintiff’s
involvement with the governmental unit and the reason for the plaintiff’s presence
at a governmental facility”—here Mr. Bynum’s payment of a water bill. Bynum II,
___ N.C. App. at ___, 746 S.E.2d at 303. This approach is contrary to the test
recently set forth in Estate of Williams, which mandates that the analysis should
center upon the governmental act or service that was allegedly done in a negligent
manner. 366 N.C. at 199, 732 S.E.2d at 141. Moreover, we have emphasized
repeatedly the importance of the character of the municipality’s acts, rather than
the nature of the plaintiff’s involvement. E.g., Moffitt v. City of Asheville, 103 N.C.
191, 203, 103 N.C. 237, 254, 9 S.E. 695, 697 (1889) (“When such municipal
corporations are acting . . . in their ministerial or corporate character in the
management of property for their own benefit, or in the exercise of powers assumed
voluntarily for their own advantage, they are impliedly liable for damage . . . .”); see
also Evans, 359 N.C. at 53, 602 S.E.2d at 670 (“[G]overnmental immunity covers
only the acts of a municipality or a municipal corporation committed pursuant to its
governmental functions.”). As a result, the Court of Appeals erred by shifting the
focus of the test and inappropriately injecting Mr. Bynum’s actions and subjective
intentions into its analysis.
Here Mr. Bynum was injured while walking down the front steps of the
Miller Road building, which houses numerous county departments, including the
-7-
BYNUM V. WILSON CNTY.
Opinion of the Court
county commissioners meeting room, the planning department, the inspections
department, the water department, the finance department, the human resources
department, and the office of the county manager. Thus, the Miller Road building
serves the County’s discretionary, legislative, and public functions, several of which
only may be performed by the Wilson County government. Cf. Seibold v. Kinston-
Lenoir Cnty. Pub. Library, 264 N.C. 360, 361, 141 S.E.2d 519, 520 (1965) (per
curiam) (noting the importance of the building’s underlying function as a public
library in a case involving injuries sustained in a fall). Notably, the legislature has
specifically assigned to the county government the responsibilities of locating,
supervising, and maintaining the county buildings that provide these functions.
N.C.G.S. § 153A-169 (2013) (“The board of commissioners shall supervise the
maintenance, repair, and use of all county property.”); see also id. at §§ 153A-351 &
153A-352 (requiring counties to perform duties and responsibilities associated with
enforcing State and local laws and ordinances relating to, inter alia, construction
and maintenance of buildings). According to the analysis set forth in Estate of
Williams, the fact that the legislature has designated these responsibilities as
governmental is dispositive.
The rule set out by the Court of Appeals, subjecting different plaintiffs
injured by the same act or omission to different immunity analyses on the basis of
their reasons for visiting the same county property, is inconsistent with our
precedent on governmental immunity. Accordingly, we reverse the decision of the
-8-
BYNUM V. WILSON CNTY.
Opinion of the Court
Court of Appeals denying summary judgment for the County on governmental
immunity grounds and hold that the County is entitled to summary judgment on
the basis of governmental immunity. This case is remanded to the Court of Appeals
for further remand to the trial court for further proceedings not inconsistent with
this opinion.
REVERSED IN PART AND REMANDED.
Justice MARTIN concurring.
Despite efforts over many years to bring clarity and predictability to the law
of governmental immunity, this goal has remained somewhat elusive. See, e.g.,
Evans ex rel. Horton v. Hous. Auth. of City of Raleigh, N.C., 359 N.C. 50, 54, 602
S.E.2d 668, 671 (2004) (“We have provided various tests for determining into which
category [governmental or proprietary] a particular activity falls, but have
consistently recognized one guiding principle . . . .”). While I agree with the
majority that plaintiffs’ claims are barred by governmental immunity, I write
separately to voice my concern that the reasoning employed in the majority opinion
may categorically bar claims for harms occurring on county or municipal property.
The majority opinion relies upon the guidance provided in Estate of Williams
v. Pasquotank County Parks & Recreation Department, which states: “[T]he
threshold inquiry in determining whether a function is proprietary or governmental
-9-
BYNUM V. WILSON CNTY.
MARTIN, J., concurring
is whether, and to what degree, the legislature has addressed the issue.” 366 N.C.
195, 200, 732 S.E.2d 137, 141-42 (2012). The majority found it dispositive that “the
legislature has specifically assigned to the county government the responsibilities of
locating, supervising, and maintaining the county buildings” and “has designated
these responsibilities as governmental.” ___ N.C. ___, ___, ___ S.E.2d ___, ___ (June
12, 2014) (380PA13) (citing N.C.G.S. § 153A-169 (2013) (“The board of
commissioners shall supervise the maintenance, repair, and use of all county
property.”); id. §§ 153A-351, -352 (2013) (requiring counties to perform certain
duties related to building inspections)). In other words, because the legislature has
made counties responsible for supervising, maintaining, and repairing all county
property, plaintiffs’ claims against Wilson County are barred by governmental
immunity.
This reasoning would seem to create a categorical rule barring any premises
liability claims against counties or municipalities for harms that occur on
government property. Thus, a municipality that owns and operates a sports arena
to produce revenue would be immune from claims arising from its failure to
properly maintain its facility. This result is inconsistent with our long-standing
precedent. For example, in Aaser v. City of Charlotte we stated,
The Coliseum is an arena for the holding of
exhibitions and athletic events owned by the city of
Charlotte and administered for it by the Authority to
produce revenue and for the private advantage of the
compact community. . . . Consequently, the liability of the
-10-
BYNUM V. WILSON CNTY.
MARTIN, J., concurring
city and of the Authority to the plaintiff for injury, due to
an unsafe condition of the premises, is the same as that of
a private person or corporation.
265 N.C. 494, 497, 144 S.E.2d 610, 613 (1965) (citations omitted). In contrast,
under the majority’s reasoning, it would have been irrelevant in Estate of Williams
that the County charged rental fees for use of the “Swimming Hole” in which the
decedent drowned—because the property was owned by the County, 366 N.C. at
196, 732 S.E.2d at 139, and therefore the County had the statutory responsibility to
maintain and repair the property, making the County immune to the tort claim.
Rather than issuing such a holding in Estate of Williams, we remanded to the Court
of Appeals, explaining, “[E]ven if the operation of a parks and recreation program is
a governmental function by statute, the question remains whether the specific
operation of the Swimming Hole component of [the county-owned public park], in
this case and under these circumstances, is a governmental function.” Id. at 201,
732 S.E.2d at 142 (citation omitted). As in Estate of Williams, the County’s
statutory responsibility to maintain and repair the property did not categorically
render the County immune from plaintiffs’ tort claims.
Instead of applying categorical rules, we have performed case-by-case
inquiries in our previous governmental immunity cases. I would apply the following
analysis here. The determinative question is “whether the alleged tortious conduct
of the county or municipality arose from an activity that was governmental or
proprietary in nature.” Estate of Williams, id. at 199, 732 S.E.2d at 141. Here, Mr.
-11-
BYNUM V. WILSON CNTY.
MARTIN, J., concurring
Bynum was injured when he fell down the steps of Wilson County’s main office
building. The complaint alleges Mr. Bynum’s fall resulted from the County’s failure
to inspect, maintain, and repair the steps to this building. So, the resulting
question is whether the County’s administration of these functions was
governmental or proprietary. This multi-use building, which is open to the public,
houses the county commissioner’s meeting room, the county manager’s office, and
several county departments, including water, finance, planning, inspections, human
resources, and geographic information systems. This building provides a convenient
location for Wilson County residents to access numerous government offices and
services. As the majority opinion aptly observes, this building “serves the County’s
discretionary, legislative, and public functions, several of which only may be
performed by the Wilson County government.” Based on these facts, this multi-use
governmental office building undoubtedly serves a governmental function, not a
proprietary function. Accordingly, plaintiffs’ claims are barred by governmental
immunity because the alleged tort arose out of the operation and maintenance of
this government office building, which is a governmental function.
By adopting what seems to be a categorical rule, the majority opinion may
inadvertently broaden the scope of governmental immunity. Because this common-
law doctrine requires case-by-case resolution, I concur in the result only.
Justices EDMUNDS and BEASLEY join in this concurring opinion.
-12-