{ "id": 11915745, "name": "ANGELA KNIGHTEN, GERALD N. KNIGHTEN, SIRINUCH T. CARRUTH, WILLIAM CARRUTH, STEVEN CARRUTH and SIRINUCH RUTH CARRUTH BATISTA, Plaintiff-Appellees v. BARNHILL CONTRACTING COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant", "name_abbreviation": "Knighten v. Barnhill Contracting Co.", "decision_date": "1996-03-19", "docket_number": "No. COA95-113", "first_page": "109", "last_page": "113", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "122 N.C. App. 109" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.", "id": 14983, "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 5, "name_long": "North Carolina", "name": "N.C." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "9 ALR3d 382", "category": "reporters:specialty", "reporter": "A.L.R. 3d", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "15 ALR3d 899", "category": "reporters:specialty", "reporter": "A.L.R. 3d", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "70 S.E.2d 182", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1952, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "185" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "235 N.C. 364", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8624558 ], "year": 1952, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "367-68" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/235/0364-01" ] }, { "cite": "123 S.E.2d 504", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1962, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "507" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "256 N.C. 197", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8571758 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1962, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "201" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/256/0197-01" ] }, { "cite": "316 S.E.2d 298", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1984, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "311 N.C. 170", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4686831 ], "year": 1984, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/311/0170-01" ] }, { "cite": "310 S.E.2d 615", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1984, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "66 N.C. App. 170", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8523598 ], "year": 1984, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/66/0170-01" ] }, { "cite": "472 U.S. 511", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 1512327 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1985, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "525" }, { "page": "424" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/472/0511-01" ] }, { "cite": "121 L.Ed.2d 431", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "year": 1992, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "506 U.S. 985", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 12035616, 12035130, 12035173, 12035238, 12035081, 12035561, 12035342, 12034992, 12035285, 12035509, 12035449, 12035034, 12035391 ], "year": 1992, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/506/0985-13", "/us/506/0985-04", "/us/506/0985-05", "/us/506/0985-06", "/us/506/0985-03", "/us/506/0985-12", "/us/506/0985-08", "/us/506/0985-01", "/us/506/0985-07", "/us/506/0985-11", "/us/506/0985-10", "/us/506/0985-02", "/us/506/0985-09" ] }, { "cite": "413 S.E.2d 276", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1992, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "330 N.C. 761", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2511641 ], "year": 1992, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/330/0761-01" ] }, { "cite": "389 S.E.2d 596", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1990, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "598" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "97 N.C. App. 527", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8522096 ], "year": 1990, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "531" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/97/0527-01" ] }, { "cite": "400 S.E.2d 767", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1991, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "769" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "101 N.C. App. 636", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8528017 ], "year": 1991, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "639" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/101/0636-01" ] }, { "cite": "454 S.E.2d 648", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1995, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "339 N.C. 737", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2556426, 2559318, 2557847, 2557592, 2559291 ], "year": 1995, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/339/0737-03", "/nc/339/0737-05", "/nc/339/0737-04", "/nc/339/0737-01", "/nc/339/0737-02" ] }, { "cite": "449 S.E.2d 240", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1994, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "242" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "116 N.C. App. 663", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8525419 ], "year": 1994, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "665" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/116/0663-01" ] }, { "cite": "404 S.E.2d 868", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1991, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "328 N.C. 731", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2544832, 2540705, 2539189, 2543193, 2543230 ], "year": 1991, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/328/0731-03", "/nc/328/0731-04", "/nc/328/0731-02", "/nc/328/0731-05", "/nc/328/0731-01" ] }, { "cite": "399 S.E.2d 142", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1991, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "147" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "101 N.C. App. 255", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8527593 ], "year": 1991, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "264" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/101/0255-01" ] }, { "cite": "444 S.E.2d 252", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1994, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "253" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "115 N.C. App. 377", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 12129791 ], "year": 1994, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "379" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/115/0377-01" ] }, { "cite": "437 S.E.2d 674", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1993, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "677" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "113 N.C. App. 19", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8520479 ], "year": 1993, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "23" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/113/0019-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 508, "char_count": 8522, "ocr_confidence": 0.748, "pagerank": { "raw": 2.1471670164081693e-07, "percentile": 0.7679631129073549 }, "sha256": "b4fad642169bccec875c2486c1776883aab6d716f272fb4aa8ca8b99deeeb67e", "simhash": "1:02500ef0067dbc8c", "word_count": 1353 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:39:52.508825+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges JOHNSON and SMITH concur." ], "parties": [ "ANGELA KNIGHTEN, GERALD N. KNIGHTEN, SIRINUCH T. CARRUTH, WILLIAM CARRUTH, STEVEN CARRUTH and SIRINUCH RUTH CARRUTH BATISTA, Plaintiff-Appellees v. BARNHILL CONTRACTING COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "WALKER, Judge.\nCumberland Paving Company, a predecessor in interest to defendant Barnhill Contracting Company (Barnhill), contracted with the North Carolina Department of Transportation (DOT) to resurface a section of Highway 87 in Harnett County. The contract required Barnhill to remove two inches of existing pavement and replace the roadway with two inches of new asphalt. The resurfacing work was completed on 2 May 1987.\nOn 4 July 1991, plaintiffs Sirinuch Ruth Carruth Batista, Angela Knighten, Sirinuch T. Carruth and Steven Carruth were traveling home from work together on Highway 87. Just south of the Highway 27 overpass, the vehicle hit a pool of water in the roadway and went out of control, causing a collision which injured these plaintiffs. Plaintiffs alleged that Barnhill negligently \u201cmilled\u201d Highway 87 by failing \u201cto maintain a sufficient cross-slope and/or pan\u00e9l to allow adequate drainage,\u201d that it negligently compacted the paving material on Highway 87, and that it negligently resurfaced Highway 87 \u201cin such a manner as to have large amounts of water to collect on the highway\u2019s surface.\u201d\nBarnhill made a motion for summary judgment. At the summary judgment hearing on 15 August 1994 Barnhill raised, for the first time, a claim that it was entitled to governmental immunity. The motion for summary judgment was taken under advisement. On 22 August 1994, plaintiffs signed a consent order to allow Barnhill to file an amended answer and a third-party complaint adding DOT as a third-party defendant. The proposed amended answer did not contain an immunity defense. On 25 August 1994, Barnhill filed an amended answer asserting the defense of government immunity. Plaintiffs responded by filing a motion to strike Barnhill\u2019s amended answer on the grounds that the defense was waived because it had not been properly raised, or added by leave of the court, or included in an amendment by consent of the parties. Barnhill filed a motion to amend its answer on 1 September 1994 to assert the defense of governmental immunity. On 15 September 1994 the court allowed plaintiff\u2019s motion to strike the governmental immunity defense, denied Barnhill\u2019s motion to amend its answer, and denied Barnhill\u2019s summary judgment motion.\nAn order which does not completely dispose of the case is interlocutory and generally not appealable. Liggett Group v. Sunas, 113 N.C. App. 19, 23, 437 S.E.2d 674, 677 (1993). The purpose of this rule is to \u201cprevent fragmentary, premature and unnecessary appeals by permitting the trial court to bring the case to final judgment before it is presented to the appellate courts.\u201d Jeffreys v. Raleigh Oaks Joint Venture, 115 N.C. App. 377, 379, 444 S.E.2d 252, 253 (1994). The denial of a motion for summary judgment is not a final judgment and is generally not immediately appealable even if the trial court has attempted to certify it for appeal under Rule 54(b). Henderson v. LeBauer, 101 N.C. App. 255, 264, 399 S.E.2d 142, 147, disc. review denied, 328 N.C. 731, 404 S.E.2d 868 (1991).\nHowever, when a defense based upon sovereign immunity is asserted, a denial of a motion for summary judgment based upon the grounds of sovereign immunity is immediately appealable. Davis v. Town of Southern Pines, 116 N.C. App. 663, 665, 449 S.E.2d 240, 242 (1994), disc. review denied, 339 N.C. 737, 454 S.E.2d 648 (1995); Herndon v. Barrett, 101 N.C. App. 636, 639, 400 S.E.2d 767, 769 (1991); Corum v. University of North Carolina, 97 N.C. App. 527, 531, 389 S.E.2d 596, 598 (1990), rev\u2019d on other grounds, 330 N.C. 761, 413 S.E.2d 276, cert. denied, 506 U.S. 985, 121 L.Ed.2d 431 (1992). The Supreme Court in Mitchell v. Forsyth, explained that \u201cdenial of a substantial claim of absolute immunity is an order appealable before final judgment, for the essence of absolute immunity is its possessor\u2019s entitlement not to have to answer for his conduct in a civil damages action.\u201d Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 525, 86 L.Ed.2d 411, 424 (1985).\nBarnhill contends that it has a right to an immediate appeal because it is entitled to share in the state\u2019s immunity pursuant to the \u201cgovernment contractor defense\u201d doctrine. Under this doctrine, a government contractor may share in the state\u2019s immunity when it complies with the plans and specifications prepared by the governmental agency.\nPlaintiffs argue that Barnhill waived the defense of governmental immunity by failing to raise the defense prior to filing its amended answer. Barnhill, however, contends that it preserved the defense of governmental immunity by raising such defense at the summary judgment hearing. In support of this argument, Barnhill relies on Walker Grading & Hauling v. S.R.F. Management Corp., 66 N.C. App. 170, 310 S.E.2d 615, rev\u2019d on other grounds, 311 N.C. 170, 316 S.E.2d 298 (1984).\nAssuming arguendo that Barnhill properly preserved the defense of governmental immunity, we find no support for defendant\u2019s argument that a contractor is entitled to share in the State\u2019s immunity from suit. As authority for its position, Barnhill cites cases from other jurisdictions and also argues that the doctrine of \u201cgovernment contractor immunity\u201d was accepted by our Supreme Court in the case of Gilliam v. Construction Co., 256 N.C. 197, 123 S.E.2d 504 (1962). Gilliam, quoting from an earlier case, provides that \u201c[o]ne who contracts with a public body for the performance of public work is entitled to share the immunity of the public body from liability for incidental injuries necessarily involved in the performance of the contract, where he is not guilty of negligence.\u201d Gilliam, 256 N.C. at 201, 123 S.E.2d at 507 (quoting Moore v. Clark, 235 N.C. 364, 367-68, 70 S.E.2d 182, 185 (1952).\nHowever, Barnhill's reliance on Gilliam is misplaced. The above language is merely dicta since the issue in Gilliam did not involve a contractor\u2019s right to assert immunity from suit but rather a defense to liability. Furthermore, we can find no authority in this State which recognizes a contractor\u2019s right to assert governmental immunity in a negligence claim which arises out of the performance of a contract with the State. Accordingly, the trial court\u2019s denial of Barnhill\u2019s motion for summary judgment did not deprive defendant of a substantial right absent an immediate appeal, and Barnhill\u2019s premature appeal must be dismissed.\nDismissed.\nJudges JOHNSON and SMITH concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "WALKER, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Beaver, Holt, Richardson, Stemlicht, Burge & Glazier, P.A., by Mark A. Stemlicht, William O. Richardson and Rebecca J. Britton, for plaintiff-appellees Angela and Gerald Knighten.", "Smith, Dickey & Smith, by Allen D. Smith, for plaintiff-appellees Sirinuch T. Carruth, William Carruth and Steven Carruth.", "Lytch, Tart, Willis & Fusco, by Phillip A. Fusco, for plaintiff-appellee Sirinuch Ruth Carruth Batista.", "Cranfill, Sumner & Hartzog, L.L.P., by David H. Batten and William W. Pollock, for defendant-appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "ANGELA KNIGHTEN, GERALD N. KNIGHTEN, SIRINUCH T. CARRUTH, WILLIAM CARRUTH, STEVEN CARRUTH and SIRINUCH RUTH CARRUTH BATISTA, Plaintiff-Appellees v. BARNHILL CONTRACTING COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant\nNo. COA95-113\n(Filed 19 March 1996)\n1. Appeal and Error \u00a7 118 (NCI4th)\u2014 defense based on sovereign immunity \u2014 interlocutory order appealable\nAn order which does not completely dispose of the case is interlocutory and generally not appealable; however, when a defense based upon sovereign immunity is asserted, the denial of a motion for summary judgment based upon the ground of sovereign immunity is immediately appealable.\nAm Jur 2d, Judgments \u00a7 203.\nReviewability of order denying motion for summary judgment. 15 ALR3d 899.\n2. Appeal and Error \u00a7 118 (NCI4th)\u2014 contractor working for state \u2014 no right to share in state\u2019s immunity in negligence claim \u2014 premature appeal dismissed\nDefendant highway contractor was not entitled to share in the state\u2019s immunity in a negligence claim arising out of the performance of its contract with the state; therefore, the trial court\u2019s denial of defendant\u2019s motion for summary judgment on the basis of sovereign immunity did not deprive defendant of a substantial right absent an immediate appeal, and defendant\u2019s premature appeal is dismissed.\nAm Jur 2d, Public Works and Contracts \u00a7 136.\nRight of contractor with federal, state, or local public body to latter\u2019s immunity from tort liability. 9 ALR3d 382.\nAppeal by defendant from orders entered 15 August 1994 and 15 September 1994 by Judge Coy E. Brewer in Cumberland County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 26 October 1995.\nBeaver, Holt, Richardson, Stemlicht, Burge & Glazier, P.A., by Mark A. Stemlicht, William O. Richardson and Rebecca J. Britton, for plaintiff-appellees Angela and Gerald Knighten.\nSmith, Dickey & Smith, by Allen D. Smith, for plaintiff-appellees Sirinuch T. Carruth, William Carruth and Steven Carruth.\nLytch, Tart, Willis & Fusco, by Phillip A. Fusco, for plaintiff-appellee Sirinuch Ruth Carruth Batista.\nCranfill, Sumner & Hartzog, L.L.P., by David H. Batten and William W. Pollock, for defendant-appellant." }, "file_name": "0109-01", "first_page_order": 145, "last_page_order": 149 }