{
  "id": 11793750,
  "name": "NELLIE A. BIGGERS, Plaintiff v. JOHN HANCOCK MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, JOHN HANCOCK PROPERTIES, INC., and CITY OF CHARLOTTE (a municipal corporation), Defendants",
  "name_abbreviation": "Biggers v. John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance",
  "decision_date": "1997-08-05",
  "docket_number": "No. COA96-1260",
  "first_page": "199",
  "last_page": "202",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "127 N.C. App. 199"
    }
  ],
  "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": "103 N.C. App. 748",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8523366
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/103/0748-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "155 S.E.2d 543",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1967,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "a municipality is responsible for negligent maintenance of drains constructed by third persons only if it adopted them as part of its drainage system or assumed control and management thereof"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "271 N.C. 224",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8563326
      ],
      "year": 1967,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "a municipality is responsible for negligent maintenance of drains constructed by third persons only if it adopted them as part of its drainage system or assumed control and management thereof"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/271/0224-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "151 S.E.2d 35",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1966,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "268 N.C. 535",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8563593
      ],
      "year": 1966,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/268/0535-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "407 S.E.2d 567",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1991,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "466 S.E.2d 336",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1996,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "Governmental immunity prevents municipal corporations from being sued when they act in a governmental capacity, but does not apply to actions which are proprietary."
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "121 N.C. App. 526",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        11918499
      ],
      "year": 1996,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "Governmental immunity prevents municipal corporations from being sued when they act in a governmental capacity, but does not apply to actions which are proprietary."
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/121/0526-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "445 S.E.2d 46",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1994,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "336 N.C. 77",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2535471
      ],
      "year": 1994,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/336/0077-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "436 S.E.2d 276",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1993,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "278"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "112 N.C. App. 604",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8523032
      ],
      "year": 1993,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "607"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/112/0604-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "126 S.E.2d 92",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1962,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "94"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "257 N.C. 367",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8567903
      ],
      "year": 1962,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "370"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/257/0367-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "326 S.E.2d 39",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1985,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "43"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "73 N.C. App. 44",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8521674
      ],
      "year": 1985,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "49"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/73/0044-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "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": "640"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/101/0636-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "409 S.E.2d 108",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1991,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "104 N.C. App. 240",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8521108
      ],
      "year": 1991,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/104/0240-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 1-277",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "103 N.C. App. 748",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8523366
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/103/0748-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 411,
    "char_count": 6469,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.758,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.0446031217563963e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7487450040523598
    },
    "sha256": "fe6734d9a7c9934af4d63b26dc3a5edca0f8aabc9dee2a4a05fc9e32b9642c01",
    "simhash": "1:1069563a20af5205",
    "word_count": 1033
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:43:16.540119+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges GREENE and TIMMONS-GOODSON concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "NELLIE A. BIGGERS, Plaintiff v. JOHN HANCOCK MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, JOHN HANCOCK PROPERTIES, INC., and CITY OF CHARLOTTE (a municipal corporation), Defendants"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "WYNN, Judge.\nPlaintiff Nellie Biggers sued defendants John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Company and John Hancock Properties, Inc. (hereinafter \u201cJohn Hancock\u201d) and defendant City of Charlotte for flood damages to her home caused by the sudden overflowing of the creek behind her property on 16 June 1992. She alleged that John Hancock negligently permitted debris to clog storm water drains located throughout the parking area of its apartment complex, causing substantial amounts of water to back up and flood the parking area. As to the City of Charlotte, she alleged that in response to a request by John Hancock to provide assistance in unclogging the storm waters drains, the City\u2019s fire department negligently released the water into the already over-burdened creek causing it to flood her neighborhood which was downstream from the apartment complex.\nFollowing a pretrial hearing, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the City of Charlotte. Ms. Biggers appealed to this Court.\nAs a preliminary matter, we note that the entry of summary judgment for fewer than all the defendants is not a final judgment and may not be appealed in the absence of certification pursuant to Rule 54(b) unless the entry of summary judgment affects a substantial right. N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 1-277, 7A-27(d). Since Ms. Biggers\u2019 alleges that the flooding of her property was the direct and proximate result of the joint acts of negligence of all the defendants, we find that she has a substantial right to have the liability of John Hancock and the City of Charlotte determined in the same trial in order to avoid the possibility of inconsistent verdicts. See Baker v. Rushing, 104 N.C. App. 240, 409 S.E.2d 108 (1991).\nThe determinative issue on appeal is whether the City of Charlotte is immune from Ms. Biggers\u2019 claim of negligence. Under the doctrine of governmental immunity,\n[A] municipality is not liable for the torts of its officers and employees if the torts are committed while they are performing a governmental function. Herndon v. Barrett, 101 N.C. App. 636, 640, 400 S.E.2d 767, 769 (1991); Wiggins v. City of Monroe, 73 N.C. App. 44, 49, 326 S.E.2d 39, 43 (1985), which includes the organization and operation of a fire department. Great American Ins. Co. v. Johnson, 257 N.C. 367, 370, 126 S.E.2d 92, 94 (1962).\nTaylor v. Ashburn, 112 N.C. App. 604, 607, 436 S.E.2d 276, 278 (1993), cert. denied, 336 N.C. 77, 445 S.E.2d 46 (1994).\nMs. Biggers maintains that the City of Charlotte does not enjoy governmental immunity because the maintenance of storm drains is a proprietary function and as a result, the courts have held cities and towns hable for negligent storm drain maintenance. See generally Kizer v. City of Raleigh, 121 N.C. App. 526, 466 S.E.2d 336 (1996) (Governmental immunity prevents municipal corporations from being sued when they act in a governmental capacity, but does not apply to actions which are proprietary.).\nIn Pulliam v. City of Greensboro, 103 N.C. App. 748, 407 S.E.2d 567 (1991), Judge Wells analyzed the basis for determining whether a municipal function is proprietary and subject to tort liability versus functions which are governmental, in which case the municipality would enjoy immunity from negligent liability. In Pulliam, we concluded that the municipality was \u201cnot immune from tort liability in the operation of its sewer system.\u201d Id. at 754. (emphasis supplied). Thus, prior to considering whether the City of Charlotte\u2019s acts in unclogging the subject drainage system constituted a proprietary or governmental function, Pulliam implies that it must first be determined whether the city either owned or operated the drainage system. See also Milner Hotels, Inc. v. City of Raleigh, 268 N.C. 535, 151 S.E.2d 35 (1966), modified on reh\u2019g, 271 N.C. 224, 155 S.E.2d 543 (1967) (a municipality is responsible for negligent maintenance of drains constructed by third persons only if it adopted them as part of its drainage system or assumed control and management thereof).\nIn the instant case, Ms. Biggers does not allege that the City of Charlotte negligently failed to maintain its own drainage system; rather, she asserts that it negligently unclogged private storm water drains in response to John Hancock\u2019s request for assistance. We find this distinction determinative and therefore hold that the City of Charlotte\u2019s actions in unclogging a privately owned storm drain were not proprietary. The trial court properly found that Ms. Biggers\u2019 action against the City of Charlotte was barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity. Accordingly, the order granting summary judgment for the City of Charlotte is,\nAffirmed.\nJudges GREENE and TIMMONS-GOODSON concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "WYNN, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Bailey, Patterson, Caddell, Hart & Bailey, P.A., by David C. Cordes, for plaintiff-appellant.",
      "Baucom, Clay tor, Benton, Morgan, Wood & White, P.A., by Rex C. Morgan, and R. Cartwright Carmichael, for defendant City of Charlotte."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "NELLIE A. BIGGERS, Plaintiff v. JOHN HANCOCK MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, JOHN HANCOCK PROPERTIES, INC., and CITY OF CHARLOTTE (a municipal corporation), Defendants\nNo. COA96-1260\n(Filed 5 August 1997)\n1. Appeal and Error \u00a7 122 (NCI4th)\u2014 flooding \u2014 multiple defendants \u2014 summary judgment against one \u2014 appealable\nA summary judgment in favor of one of several defendants in an action arising from the flooding of plaintiff\u2019s property was appealable where the plaintiff had alleged that the flooding was the direct and proximate result of the joint acts of negligence of all the defendants. Plaintiff had a substantial right to have the liability of all defendants determined in the same trial in order to avoid the possibility of inconsistent verdicts. N.C.G.S. \u00a7 1-277, 7A-27(d).\n2. Municipal Corporations \u00a7 421 (NCI4th)\u2014 negligent clearing of stormwater drains \u2014 governmental immunity \u2014 private water drains\nThe trial court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of defendant-city based on the doctrine of governmental immunity where plaintiff alleged that the City negligently unclogged private storm water drains. While cities and towns have been held liable for negligent storm drain maintenance, Pulliam v. City of Greensboro, 103 N.C. App. 748, implies that it must first be determined whether the city either owned or operated the drainage system.\nAppeal by plaintiff from judgment entered 22 July 1996 by Judge Marvin K. Gray in Mecklenburg County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 1 May 1997.\nBailey, Patterson, Caddell, Hart & Bailey, P.A., by David C. Cordes, for plaintiff-appellant.\nBaucom, Clay tor, Benton, Morgan, Wood & White, P.A., by Rex C. Morgan, and R. Cartwright Carmichael, for defendant City of Charlotte."
  },
  "file_name": "0199-01",
  "first_page_order": 235,
  "last_page_order": 238
}