{ "id": 9497483, "name": "JACQUELINE HUNTLEY, Plaintiff v. JITEN G. PANDYA, ASHA J. PANDYA, ALLAN ELKINS, STEVEN CARTEE, and HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF CHARLOTTE, Defendants", "name_abbreviation": "Huntley v. Pandya", "decision_date": "2000-08-15", "docket_number": "No. COA99-125", "first_page": "624", "last_page": "627", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "139 N.C. App. 624" } ], "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": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 157-66", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 157-26", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 157-4", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "20 S.E.2d 825", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1942, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "830", "parenthetical": "same" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "221 N.C. 472", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8628352 ], "year": 1942, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "479", "parenthetical": "same" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/221/0472-01" ] }, { "cite": "163 S.E.2d 387", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1968, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "394", "parenthetical": "stating that municipal corporations are organized primarily for the purposes of local government" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "274 N.C. 343", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8560087 ], "year": 1968, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "352", "parenthetical": "stating that municipal corporations are organized primarily for the purposes of local government" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/274/0343-01" ] }, { "cite": "66 S.E.2d 794", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1951, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "798", "parenthetical": "\"Municipal corporations are instrumentalities of the state for the administration of local government.\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "234 N.C. 117", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8618971 ], "year": 1951, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "123", "parenthetical": "\"Municipal corporations are instrumentalities of the state for the administration of local government.\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/234/0117-01" ] }, { "cite": "73 S.E.2d 289", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1952, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "293", "parenthetical": "\"When a municipality is acting 'in behalf of the State' in promoting or protecting the health, safety, security, or general welfare of its citizens, it is an agency of the sovereign.\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "236 N.C. 446", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8626272 ], "year": 1952, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "450", "parenthetical": "\"When a municipality is acting 'in behalf of the State' in promoting or protecting the health, safety, security, or general welfare of its citizens, it is an agency of the sovereign.\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/236/0446-01" ] }, { "cite": "480 S.E.2d 685", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1997, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "687" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "345 N.C. 443", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 54084 ], "year": 1997, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "447" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/345/0443-01" ] }, { "cite": "65 S.E.2d 761", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1951, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "764" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "233 N.C. 649", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8615583 ], "year": 1951, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "653" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/233/0649-01" ] }, { "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 157-3", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "(1)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "112 S.E.2d 386", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1960, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "387" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "251 N.C. 812", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8627604 ], "year": 1960, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "813" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/251/0812-01" ] }, { "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 157-1-157-70", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "410 S.E.2d 897", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1991, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "330 N.C. 363", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2509910 ], "year": 1991, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/330/0363-01" ] }, { "cite": "517 S.E.2d 121", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1999, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "refusing to extend the public duty doctrine to shield a city from liability for the allegedly negligent acts of a school crossing guard" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "350 N.C. 601", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 132031 ], "year": 1999, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "refusing to extend the public duty doctrine to shield a city from liability for the allegedly negligent acts of a school crossing guard" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/350/0601-01" ] }, { "cite": "142 L. Ed. 2d 449", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "year": 1998, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "119 S. Ct. 540", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "S. Ct.", "year": 1998, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "525 U.S. 1016", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 11156739, 11157155, 11156710, 11157000, 11156777, 11156840, 11157035, 11156877, 11157106, 11157075, 11156922, 11156799 ], "year": 1998, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/525/1016-02", "/us/525/1016-12", "/us/525/1016-01", "/us/525/1016-08", "/us/525/1016-03", "/us/525/1016-05", "/us/525/1016-09", "/us/525/1016-06", "/us/525/1016-11", "/us/525/1016-10", "/us/525/1016-07", "/us/525/1016-04" ] }, { "cite": "495 S.E.2d 711", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1998, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "347 N.C. 473", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 551270 ], "year": 1998, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/347/0473-01" ] }, { "cite": "499 S.E.2d 747", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1998, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "348 N.C. 192", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 1659768 ], "year": 1998, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/348/0192-01" ] }, { "cite": "526 S.E.2d 650", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2000, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "351 N.C. 462", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 1155787 ], "year": 2000, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/351/0462-01" ] }, { "cite": "526 S.E.2d 652", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2000, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "351 N.C. 458", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 1155962 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2000, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "461" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/351/0458-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 447, "char_count": 7092, "ocr_confidence": 0.767, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08, "percentile": 0.21850366565772752 }, "sha256": "0fc49a1835e6578a8ba26b50eee3c1dfb1997044cf8a9bacb8fc7816d307afd3", "simhash": "1:4ba98ddc5c3b305d", "word_count": 1128 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:40:43.899160+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges WYNN and MARTIN concur." ], "parties": [ "JACQUELINE HUNTLEY, Plaintiff v. JITEN G. PANDYA, ASHA J. PANDYA, ALLAN ELKINS, STEVEN CARTEE, and HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF CHARLOTTE, Defendants" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "LEWIS, Judge.\nIn an unpublished opinion filed 7 March 2000, this Court concluded the public duty doctrine barred the plaintiffs action against the Charlotte Housing Authority (\u201cHousing Authority\u201d) and two of its employees. We reversed the trial court\u2019s 18 November 1998 order and remanded to the trial court for entry of summary judgment in favor of these defendants. Plaintiff filed a petition for rehearing pursuant to Rule 31 of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure 11 April 2000 which we granted, 14 April 2000.\nIn two recent opinions, our Supreme Court declined to expand the public duty doctrine beyond local government agencies other than law enforcement departments exercising their general duty to protect the public. Lovelace v. City of Shelby, 351 N.C. 458, 526 S.E.2d 652 (2000); Thompson v. Waters, 351 N.C. 462, 526 S.E.2d 650 (2000). In Lovelace, the court stated:\nWhile [the Supreme] Court has extended the public duty doctrine to state agencies required by statute to conduct inspections for the public\u2019s general protection, see Hunt v. N.C. Dep\u2019t of Labor, 348 N.C. 192, 499 S.E.2d 747 (1998); Stone v. N.C. Dep\u2019t of Labor, 347 N.C. 473, 495 S.E.2d 711, cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1016, 119 S. Ct. 540, 142 L. Ed. 2d 449 (1998), we have never expanded the public duty doctrine to any local government agencies other than law enforcement departments when they are exercising their general duty to protect the public, see Isenhour v. Hutto, 350 N.C. 601, 517 S.E.2d 121 (1999) (refusing to extend the public duty doctrine to shield a city from liability for the allegedly negligent acts of a school crossing guard) .... Thus, the public duty doctrine, as it applies to local government, is limited to the facts of Braswell [v. Braswell, 330 N.C. 363, 410 S.E.2d 897 (1991)].\nLovelace, 351 N.C. at 461, 526 S.E.2d at 654.\nIn light of this mandate by our Supreme Court, the issue becomes whether the Charlotte Housing Authority is properly classified as a state or local government agency.\nThe Charlotte Housing Authority is organized pursuant to the North Carolina Housing Authorities Law (N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 157-1-157-70, the \u201cHousing Authorities Law\u201d). The statute authorizes the creation of \u201cauthorities\u201d or \u201chousing authorities\u201d as \u201ca means of protecting low-income citizens from unsafe or unsanitary conditions in urban or rural areas.\u201d Powell v. Housing Authority, 251 N.C. 812, 813, 112 S.E.2d 386, 387 (1960). The statute defines \u201cauthority\u201d or \u201chousing authority\u201d as \u201ca public body and a body corporate and politic organized in accordance with the provisions of this Article for the purposes, with the powers and subject to the restrictions hereinafter set forth.\u201d N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 157-3(1).\nA Housing Authority created pursuant to Chapter 157 is a municipal corporation. In re Housing Authority, 233 N.C. 649, 653, 65 S.E.2d 761, 764 (1951). Our Supreme Court has addressed the definition of a municipal corporation in a line of authority distinct from the issue presented here. Therein, the court has stated that \u201cmunicipal corporations are agents of the state.\u201d Soles v. City of Raleigh Civil Service Comm., 345 N.C. 443, 447, 480 S.E.2d 685, 687 (1997); see also Britt v. Wilmington, 236 N.C. 446, 450, 73 S.E.2d 289, 293 (1952) (\u201cWhen a municipality is acting \u2018in behalf of the State\u2019 in promoting or protecting the health, safety, security, or general welfare of its citizens, it is an agency of the sovereign.\u201d) While Soles makes seemingly clear that a municipal corporation is properly classified as a state agency, the court has also indicated that municipal corporations are created as local units of self-government. Town of Grimesland v. City of Washington, 234 N.C. 117, 123, 66 S.E.2d 794, 798 (1951) (\u201cMunicipal corporations are instrumentalities of the state for the administration of local government.\u201d); see also Harris v. Board of Commissioners, 274 N.C. 343, 352, 163 S.E.2d 387, 394 (1968) (stating that municipal corporations are organized primarily for the purposes of local government); Bridges v. Charlotte, 221 N.C. 472, 479, 20 S.E.2d 825, 830 (1942) (same). Keeping in mind the dual nature established by this authority and that our courts have never addressed the issue of classification as a state or local government agency in this context, we conclude this distinct line of authority is not entirely instructive here.\nWe thus turn to the specific statutory provisions in Chapter 157 for guidance. Our review pursuant to these provisions indicates that a housing authority is properly classified as a local government agency, despite its existence as a municipal corporation. For instance, pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 157-4, a housing authority is created by local government; the city council and its members are appointed by the mayor. Furthermore, the language in several provisions within Chapter 157 clearly distinguishes between housing authorities and state agencies. For example, N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 157-26 labels housing authorities as \u201clocal government agenc[ies]\u201d and exempts them from taxation \u201cto the same extent as a unit of local government.\u201d Furthermore, the Housing Authorities Law which creates the North Carolina Indian Housing Authority states: \u201cIt is the intent of the General Assembly that the North Carolina Indian Housing Authority not be treated as a State agency for any purpose, but rather that it be treated as a housing authority as set out above.\u201d N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 157-66. The specific provisions relevant to housing authorities compel the conclusion that a housing authority is properly classified as a local government agency. Accordingly, we conclude that in light of Lovelace and Thompson, the public duty doctrine does not apply to the Charlotte Housing Authority.\nContrary to our prior disposition in this appeal, we now affirm the trial court\u2019s order of 18 November 1998 denying defendants\u2019 motion for summary judgment, and remand this action to the Mecklenburg County Superior Court for trial. This opinion supersedes in all respects the previous opinion of the Court.\nReversed.\nJudges WYNN and MARTIN concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "LEWIS, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Price, Smith, Hargett, Petho and Anderson, by C. Murphy Archibald and William Benjamin Smith, for plaintiff-appellee.", "Root & Root, P.L.L.C., by Allan P Root, for defendant-appellants." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "JACQUELINE HUNTLEY, Plaintiff v. JITEN G. PANDYA, ASHA J. PANDYA, ALLAN ELKINS, STEVEN CARTEE, and HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF CHARLOTTE, Defendants\nNo. COA99-125\n(Filed 15 August 2000)\nCities and Towns\u2014 public duty doctrine \u2014 inapplicable to housing authorities\nThe trial court\u2019s order denying a motion for summary judgment by defendants Charlotte Housing Authority and two of its employees is affirmed because a housing authority is properly classified as a local government agency despite its existence as a municipal corporation, and therefore, the public duty doctrine does not apply to bar plaintiffs action.\nAppeal by defendants from order entered 18 November 1998 by Judge Marvin K. Gray in Mecklenburg County Superior Court. Originally heard in the Court of Appeals 25 October 1999.\nPrice, Smith, Hargett, Petho and Anderson, by C. Murphy Archibald and William Benjamin Smith, for plaintiff-appellee.\nRoot & Root, P.L.L.C., by Allan P Root, for defendant-appellants." }, "file_name": "0624-01", "first_page_order": 656, "last_page_order": 659 }