{ "id": 8301031, "name": "ROBERT ERNEST WILLETT, Plaintiff v. THE CHATHAM COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, Defendant", "name_abbreviation": "Willett v. Chatham County Board of Education", "decision_date": "2006-02-21", "docket_number": "No. COA05-607", "first_page": "268", "last_page": "273", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "176 N.C. App. 268" } ], "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": "379 S.E.2d 30", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1989, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "37", "parenthetical": "\"Where a panel of the Court of Appeals has decided the same issue, albeit in a different case, a subsequent panel of the same court is bound by that precedent, unless it has been overturned by a higher court.\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "324 N.C. 373", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2483734 ], "year": 1989, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "384", "parenthetical": "\"Where a panel of the Court of Appeals has decided the same issue, albeit in a different case, a subsequent panel of the same court is bound by that precedent, unless it has been overturned by a higher court.\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/324/0373-01" ] }, { "cite": "592 S.E.2d 694", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 12631140, 12631141, 12631142 ], "year": 2004, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/592/0694-03", "/se2d/592/0694-01", "/se2d/592/0694-02" ] }, { "cite": "358 N.C. 156", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 12631142, 12631143, 12631144, 12631145, 12631146, 12631147, 12631149 ], "year": 2004, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/592/0694-02", "/se2d/592/0696-03", "/se2d/592/0696-01", "/se2d/592/0696-02", "/se2d/592/0697-01", "/se2d/592/0698-02", "/se2d/592/0699-01" ] }, { "cite": "425 S.E.2d 465", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1993, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "108 N.C. App. 757", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8525598 ], "year": 1993, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/108/0757-01" ] }, { "cite": "68 S.E.2d 783", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1952, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "235 N.C. 1", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8620036 ], "year": 1952, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/235/0001-01" ] }, { "cite": "348 S.E.2d 524", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1986, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "527", "parenthetical": "\"[fjollowing the rule of strict construction, we decline to impose any further waiver not created by the statute.\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "83 N.C. App. 21", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8357924 ], "year": 1986, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "26", "parenthetical": "\"[fjollowing the rule of strict construction, we decline to impose any further waiver not created by the statute.\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/83/0021-01" ] }, { "cite": "511 S.E.2d 41", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1999, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "44" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "132 N.C. App. 335", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 11237763 ], "year": 1999, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "339" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/132/0335-01" ] }, { "cite": "577 S.E.2d 411", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2003, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "415", "parenthetical": "quoting Vanasek v. Duke Power Co., 132 N.C. App. 335, 339, 511 S.E.2d 41, 44 (1999)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "156 N.C. App. 503", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 9191271 ], "year": 2003, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "508", "parenthetical": "quoting Vanasek v. Duke Power Co., 132 N.C. App. 335, 339, 511 S.E.2d 41, 44 (1999)" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/156/0503-01" ] }, { "cite": "525 S.E.2d 173", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2000, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "351 N.C. 344", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 1155796 ], "year": 2000, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/351/0344-01" ] }, { "cite": "518 S.E.2d 522", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1999, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "525" }, { "page": "525" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "134 N.C. App. 583", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 11146192 ], "year": 1999, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "586" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/134/0583-01" ] }, { "cite": "118 S.E.2d 134", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1961, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "142", "parenthetical": "\"In our opinion, the phrase 'without assuming liability therefor' was inserted for the purpose of making it clear that such governing authorities were not waiving governmental immunity.\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "254 N.C. 1", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8623885 ], "year": 1961, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "11", "parenthetical": "\"In our opinion, the phrase 'without assuming liability therefor' was inserted for the purpose of making it clear that such governing authorities were not waiving governmental immunity.\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/254/0001-01" ] }, { "cite": "170 S.E.2d 169", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1969, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "174", "parenthetical": "\"actual profit is not the test, and the city will not lose its government immunity solely because it is engaged in an activity which makes a profit.\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "6 N.C. App. 234", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8547618 ], "year": 1969, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "241", "parenthetical": "\"actual profit is not the test, and the city will not lose its government immunity solely because it is engaged in an activity which makes a profit.\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/6/0234-01" ] }, { "cite": "438 S.E.2d 208", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1993, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "335 N.C. 181", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2532529, 2531676, 2530158, 2527391 ], "year": 1993, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/335/0181-01", "/nc/335/0181-02", "/nc/335/0181-03", "/nc/335/0181-04" ] }, { "cite": "432 S.E.2d 419", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "422" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "111 N.C. App. 330", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8521915 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "335" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/111/0330-01" ] }, { "cite": "399 S.E.2d 121", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1990, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "327 N.C. 634", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2495648, 2499943, 2496788, 2493082, 2500123 ], "year": 1990, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/327/0634-02", "/nc/327/0634-03", "/nc/327/0634-04", "/nc/327/0634-05", "/nc/327/0634-01" ] }, { "cite": "394 S.E.2d 231", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1990, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "235" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "99 N.C. App. 693", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8524694 ], "year": 1990, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "699" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/99/0693-01" ] }, { "cite": "73 S.E.2d 289", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1952, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "293" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "236 N.C. 446", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8626272 ], "year": 1952, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "451" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/236/0446-01" ] }, { "cite": "427 S.E.2d 621", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1993, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "333 N.C. 462", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2548640, 2547147, 2546833, 2548952, 2548026 ], "year": 1993, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/333/0462-04", "/nc/333/0462-05", "/nc/333/0462-02", "/nc/333/0462-03", "/nc/333/0462-01" ] }, { "cite": "422 S.E.2d 449", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 3, "year": 1992, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "451" }, { "page": "451-52", "parenthetical": "citation omitted" }, { "page": "452" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "108 N.C. App. 80", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8522588 ], "weight": 4, "year": 1992, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "82-83" }, { "page": "84" }, { "page": "84" }, { "page": "761" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/108/0080-01" ] }, { "cite": "581 S.E.2d 88", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 2003, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "92-93", "parenthetical": "holding that the Johnston County Board of Education's participation in the North Carolina School Board Trust did not constitute a waiver of immunity for claims up to $ 100,000.00" }, { "page": "92", "parenthetical": "rules of strict construction apply to interpretation of statutes dealing with curtailment of board's governmental immunity" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "158 N.C. App. 423", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 9187947 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2003, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "429", "parenthetical": "holding that the Johnston County Board of Education's participation in the North Carolina School Board Trust did not constitute a waiver of immunity for claims up to $ 100,000.00" }, { "page": "428" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/158/0423-01" ] }, { "cite": "573 S.E.2d 538", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2002, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "543" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "154 N.C. App. 357", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 9250072 ], "year": 2002, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "365" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/154/0357-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 681, "char_count": 13025, "ocr_confidence": 0.755, "pagerank": { "raw": 9.1697404811349e-08, "percentile": 0.5088717527546973 }, "sha256": "02c316fbb1759b5d05249a90b8430587ad8a302e8156b2e638af06e715e19581", "simhash": "1:430d105ff7bfe676", "word_count": 2063 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:09:49.892129+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges HUNTER and JACKSON concur." ], "parties": [ "ROBERT ERNEST WILLETT, Plaintiff v. THE CHATHAM COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, Defendant" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "WYNN, Judge.\nSchool boards enjoy the right of governmental immunity absent waiver or a statute to the contrary. In this case, Plaintiff Robert Ernest Willett argues that a school board\u2019s participation in the North Carolina School Board Trust Fund and performance of a proprietary function constituted waivers; he also asserts the existence of a statutory cause of action. Because his arguments are not supported by North Carolina law, we reject Plaintiffs appeal.\nOn 9 February 2000, while attending a middle school basketball game at Moncure Elementary School (a public school in Chatham County), Mr. Willett allegedly suffered injuries when the bleachers in the gymnasium folded, caught his ankle and caused him to fall. Mr. Willett brought an action for damages alleging that Defendant Chatham County Board of Education (\u201cChatham School Board\u201d) waived its governmental immunity by participating in the North Carolina School Board Trust Risk Management Program, and by engaging in a proprietary function. Mr. Willett further alleged that section 115C-524(b) of the North Carolina General Statutes implicitly creates a cause of action, not barred by governmental immunity, for injuries arising from the failure to maintain all school buildings in good repair and proper condition. Nonetheless, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the Chatham School Board on sovereign immunity grounds. Mr. Willett appeals to this Court.\nOn appeal, Mr. Willett first argues that the Chatham School Board waived governmental immunity under section 115C-42 of the North Carolina General Statutes by entering into a general trust fund agreement with the North Carolina School Board Trust. We need not further consider this argument because in Lucas v. Swain County Bd. of Educ., 154 N.C. App. 357, 365, 573 S.E.2d 538, 543 (2002), this Court specifically rejected it. See also Ripellino v. North Carolina Sch. Bd.\u2019s Ass\u2019n, 158 N.C. App. 423, 429, 581 S.E.2d 88, 92-93 (2003) (holding that the Johnston County Board of Education\u2019s participation in the North Carolina School Board Trust did not constitute a waiver of immunity for claims up to $ 100,000.00), cert. denied, 358 N.C. 156, 592 S.E.2d 694 (2004). Accordingly, we reject this assignment of error as barred by binding precedents. See In re Civil Penalty, 324 N.C. 373, 384, 379 S.E.2d 30, 37 (1989) (\u201cWhere a panel of the Court of Appeals has decided the same issue, albeit in a different case, a subsequent panel of the same court is bound by that precedent, unless it has been overturned by a higher court.\u201d).\nMr. Willett further contends the Chatham School Board waived its governmental immunity by engaging in a proprietary function. Specifically, he argues that by operating a basketball game and charging admission, the Chatham School Board profited and therefore waived its governmental immunity. This argument is also without merit.\nGovernmental immunity shields a state entity in the performance of governmental functions, but not proprietary functions. Hickman v. Fuqua, 108 N.C. App. 80, 82-83, 422 S.E.2d 449, 451 (1992), disc. review denied, 333 N.C. 462, 427 S.E.2d 621 (1993). Our Supreme Court distinguished governmental functions from proprietary functions by stating, \u201cIf the undertaking of the municipality is one in which only a governmental agency could engage, it is governmental in nature. It is proprietary and \u2018private\u2019 when any corporation, individual, or group of individuals could do the same thing.\u201d Britt v. City of Wilmington, 236 N.C. 446, 451, 73 S.E.2d 289, 293 (1952).\nIn applying the Britt test, this Court has held, \u201c[c]harging a substantial fee to the extent that a profit is made is strong evidence that the activity is proprietary.\u201d Hare v. Butler, 99 N.C. App. 693, 699, 394 S.E.2d 231, 235, disc. review denied, 327 N.C. 634, 399 S.E.2d 121 (1990). However, \u201ca \u2018profit motive\u2019 is not the sole determinative factor when deciding whether an activity is governmental or proprietary.\u201d Hickman, 108 N.C. App. at 84, 422 S.E.2d at 451-52 (citation omitted); see also State Art Museum Bldg. Comm\u2019n v. Travelers Indem. Co., 111 N.C. App. 330, 335, 432 S.E.2d 419, 422 (\u201cthe mere receipt of private funds does not render the State\u2019s actions proprietary\u201d), disc. review denied, 335 N.C. 181, 438 S.E.2d 208 (1993); McCombs v. City of Asheboro, 6 N.C. App. 234, 241, 170 S.E.2d 169, 174 (1969) (\u201cactual profit is not the test, and the city will not lose its government immunity solely because it is engaged in an activity which makes a profit.\u201d). Instead, \u201ccourts look to see whether an undertaking is one \u2018traditionally\u2019 provided by the local governmental units.\u201d Hickman, 108 N.C. App. at 84, 422 S.E.2d at 452.\nIn this case, Mr. Willett contends that the Chatham School Board\u2019s operation of a competitive basketball team is not within the purview of traditional government activities. However, section 115C-47(4) of the North Carolina General Statutes confers exclusive authority on all local school boards to operate an athletic program. Section 115C-47(4) provides in pertinent part:\nIn addition to the powers and duties designated in G.S. 115C-36, local boards of education shall have the power or duty:\n(4) To Regulate Extracurricular Activities. Local boards of education shall make all rules and regulations necessary for the conducting of extracurricular activities in the schools under their supervision, including a program of athletics, where desired, without assuming liability therefor; provided, that all interscholastic athletic activities shall be conducted in accordance with rules and regulations prescribed by the State Board of Education.\nN.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 115C-47(4) (2005). The General Assembly\u2019s mandate in section 115C-47(4) leaves little room for doubt as to whether the school board\u2019s operation of an athletic program is a traditional government function. The fact that section 115C-47(4) grants all local boards of education across the state the exclusive authority to control the interscholastic athletic program for the county\u2019s public schools renders this function traditionally governmental in nature. The statute further provides that the local boards shall not incur liability by virtue of its control over activities of the athletic program, making it clear that the local boards are not waiving their governmental immunity. See North Carolina Utilities Comm\u2019n v. McKinnon, 254 N.C. 1, 11, 118 S.E.2d 134, 142 (1961) (\u201cIn our opinion, the phrase \u2018without assuming liability therefor\u2019 was inserted for the purpose of making it clear that such governing authorities were not waiving governmental immunity.\u201d).\nMoreover, the Chatham School Board\u2019s charging admission to the basketball game is not conclusive in determining that it engaged in a proprietary activity. In McIver v. Smith, this Court rejected the assertion that \u201cone of the major tests in labeling a government activity proprietary is whether a monetary fee is involved.\u201d McIver v. Smith, 134 N.C. App. 583, 586, 518 S.E.2d 522, 525 (1999), disc. review improvidently allowed, 351 N.C. 344, 525 S.E.2d 173 (2000). In that case, we held that the county\u2019s ambulance service was not a proprietary activity, stating \u201c[t]he fact that [the county] charged a fee for its ambulance service does not alone make it a proprietary operation.\u201d Id. at 587, 518 S.E.2d at 525. Likewise, the fees charged in this case do not make the basketball game held at the public school a proprietary operation. The admission fee of $1.00 for students and $2.00 for parents was hardly \u201csubstantial,\u201d and there is no evidence in the record to show that the basketball admission charges generated enough revenue to pay for anything other than the school\u2019s athletic program. Because the operation of an athletic program is an authority conferred on the school board by the legislature, and the Chatham School Board did not engage in a proprietary operation, we conclude that the Chatham School Board did not waive its governmental immunity.\nMr. Willett next contends that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment because section 115C-524(b) of the North Carolina General Statutes implicitly creates a cause of action \u2014 not barred by governmental immunity \u2014 for injuries arising from the failure to maintain all school buildings in good repair and proper condition. We disagree.\nSchool boards enjoy the right of sovereign immunity absent a statute to the contrary. Smith, 235 N.C. at 7, 68 S.E.2d at 787 (\u201ca subordinate division of the state, or agency exercising statutory governmental functions like a city administrative school unit, may be sued only when and as authorized by statute\u201d); Lindler, 108 N.C. App. at 761, 425 S.E.2d at 468 (\u201cschools enjoy the right of sovereign immunity absent a statute to the contrary.\u201d). North Carolina General Statute section 115C-524(b) provides:\nIt shall be the duty of local boards of education and tax-levying authorities, in order to safeguard the investment made in public schools, to keep all school buildings in good repair to the end that all public school property shall be taken care of and be at all times in proper condition for use . . .\nNotwithstanding the provisions of G.S. 115C-263 and 115C-264, local boards of education may adopt rules and regulations under which they may enter into agreements permitting non-school groups to use school real and personal property, except for school buses, for other than school purposes so long as such use is consistent with the proper preservation and care of the public school property. No liability shall attach to any board of education, individually or collectively, for personal injury suffered by reason of the use of such school property pursuant to such agreements.\nN.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 115C-524(b) (2005). Generally, a statute allows for a private cause of action \u201conly where the legislature has expressly provided a private cause of action within the statute.\u201d Lea v. Grier, 156 N.C. App. 503, 508, 577 S.E.2d 411, 415 (2003) (quoting Vanasek v. Duke Power Co., 132 N.C. App. 335, 339, 511 S.E.2d 41, 44 (1999)).\nHere, section 115C-24 does not expressly create a basis for an individual to bring a claim against a local board of education for its alleged failure to maintain school property in proper condition for use. Indeed, the plain language of the statute provides that the local boards and tax-levying authorities must keep all school buildings in good repair \u201cin order to safeguard the investment made in public schools.\u201d N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 115C-524(b) (emphasis added). While Mr. Willett argues that section 115C-524(b) implicitly creates a private right of action for individuals, our courts have declined to infer or imply an abrogation of a school board\u2019s immunity. See Ripellino, 158 N.C. App. at 428, 581 S.E.2d at 92 (rules of strict construction apply to interpretation of statutes dealing with curtailment of board\u2019s governmental immunity); Overcash v. Statesville City Bd. of Educ., 83 N.C. App. 21, 26, 348 S.E.2d 524, 527 (1986) (\u201c[fjollowing the rule of strict construction, we decline to impose any further waiver not created by the statute.\u201d). Accordingly, absent express language in section 115C-524 indicating that the statute curtails the school board\u2019s governmental immunity, that immunity cannot be curtailed.\nAffirmed.\nJudges HUNTER and JACKSON concur.\n. See Smith v. Hefner, 235 N.C. 1, 68 S.E.2d 783 (1952); Lindler v. Duplin County Bd. of Educ., 108 N.C. App. 757, 425 S.E.2d 465 (1993).", "type": "majority", "author": "WYNN, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Staton, Doster, Post, & Silverman, Norman G. Post, Jr., for plaintiff-appellant.", "Cranfill, Sumner & Hartzog, LLP, Stephanie Hutchins Autry and Alycia S. Levy; and Allison B. Schafer, for defendant-appellant.", "Tharrington Smith, LLP, Deborah Stagner, for the North Carolina School Boards Association, amicus curiae." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "ROBERT ERNEST WILLETT, Plaintiff v. THE CHATHAM COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, Defendant\nNo. COA05-607\n(Filed 21 February 2006)\n1. Immunity\u2014 participation in School Board Trust \u2014 no waiver of governmental immunity\nBinding precedents bar the argument that defendant school board waived governmental immunity by entering into a general trust fund agreement with the North Carolina School Board Trust.\n2. Immunity\u2014 school board \u2014 basketball game with charged admission \u2014 not a proprietary function \u2014 not a waiver\nDefendant school board did not waive its governmental immunity by operating a basketball game for which admission was charged. The operation of an athletic program is an authority conferred on the school board by the legislature and did not involve a proprietary operation.\n3. Immunity\u2014 school board \u2014 failure to maintain school property\nN.C.G.S. \u00a7 115C-24 does not implicitly create a private right of ' action against a local board of education for injuries arising from the board\u2019s alleged failure to maintain school property in proper condition for use.\nAppeal by Plaintiff from judgment entered 13 December 2004 by Judge James M. Webb in Superior Court, Chatham County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 24 January 2006.\nStaton, Doster, Post, & Silverman, Norman G. Post, Jr., for plaintiff-appellant.\nCranfill, Sumner & Hartzog, LLP, Stephanie Hutchins Autry and Alycia S. Levy; and Allison B. Schafer, for defendant-appellant.\nTharrington Smith, LLP, Deborah Stagner, for the North Carolina School Boards Association, amicus curiae." }, "file_name": "0268-01", "first_page_order": 300, "last_page_order": 305 }