TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

White v. City of Charlotte

J. R. WHITE, Administrator of SARAH ELIZABETH WHITE, Deceased, v. THE CITY OF CHARLOTTE, and CHARLOTTE PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION

White v. City of Charlotte, 183 S.E. 730 (N.C. 1936)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of North Carolina · State Highest Courts
Decided
February 26, 1936
Judges
Connor
Citations
183 S.E. 730209 N.C. 5731936 N.C. LEXIS 296

Opinion of the Court — O'Connor

Connor, J.

The facts alleged in the amended complaint in this action (see White v. City of Charlotte, 207 N. C., 721 , 178 S. E., 219 ), are sufficient to constitute a cause of action on which the plaintiff is entitled to recover of the defendants, unless, as contended by the defendants, the injuries which resulted in the death of plaintiff’s intestate were caused by the defendants while they were engaged in the performance of a governmental function. In that event, although the death of plaintiff’s intestate was caused by the failure of the defendants to exercise reasonable care for her safety, the defendants are not liable to the *575 plaintiff for damages resulting from her death. See Scales v. Winston-Salem, 189 N. C., 469 , 127 S. E., 543 . On the other hand, if the fatal injuries were caused by the defendants while engaged in the performance of a mere corporate function, the defendants are liable, notwithstanding their status as municipal corporations. See Parks-Belk Co. v. Concord, 194 N. C., 134 , 138 S. E., 599 .

The facts alleged in the complaint in this action are not sufficient to determine as a matter of law whether or not the defendants, in maintaining a public park in the city of Charlotte, and providing in said park a swing for the use of children and others who used said park for purposes of recreation, were thereby engaged in the performance of a governmental function only. For that reason, there was no error in overruling the demurrer filed by the defendants. When the facts on which the defendants rely to support their contention that they are not liable to plaintiff in this action are developed on the trial of the action on its merits, the question debated on the argument and in the briefs on this appeal will be presented for decision.

Affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1936: 11945: 11954: 11955: 11964: 11985: 119362026peak 1936 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Foust v. City of Durham79 S.E.2d 519 (N.C. 1954)
  2. Brumley v. Baxter36 S.E.2d 281 (N.C. 1945)
  3. Mabel W. Hitchings v. Albemarle Hospital220 F.2d 716 (4th Cir. 1955)
  4. Penley v. Penley332 S.E.2d 51 (N.C. 1985)
  5. Carolina Helicopter Corp. v. Cutter Realty Co.139 S.E.2d 362 (N.C. 1964)
  6. Atkins v. City of Durham186 S.E. 330 (N.C. 1936)

Most recent

  1. Penley v. Penley332 S.E.2d 51 (N.C. 1985)
  2. Carolina Helicopter Corp. v. Cutter Realty Co.139 S.E.2d 362 (N.C. 1964)
  3. Mabel W. Hitchings v. Albemarle Hospital220 F.2d 716 (4th Cir. 1955)
  4. Foust v. City of Durham79 S.E.2d 519 (N.C. 1954)
  5. Brumley v. Baxter36 S.E.2d 281 (N.C. 1945)
  6. Atkins v. City of Durham186 S.E. 330 (N.C. 1936)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 3

DepthCaseCited by
Scales v. City of Winston-Salem, 127 S.E. 543 (N.C. 1925) 21
Parks-Belk Co. v. City of Concord, 138 S.E. 599 (N.C. 1927) 13
White v. City of Charlotte, 178 S.E. 219 (N.C. 1935) 7

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list