{ "id": 8655572, "name": "H. MUNICK v. CITY OF DURHAM and the BOARD OF WATER COMMISSIONERS", "name_abbreviation": "Munick v. City of Durham", "decision_date": "1921-04-06", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "188", "last_page": "196", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "181 N.C. 188" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.C.", "id": 9292, "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 5, "name_long": "North Carolina", "name": "N.C." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "127 N. C., 149", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "133 N. C., 517", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "88 N. C., 544", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "132 N. C., 859", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "117 N. C., 592", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8653699 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/117/0592-01" ] }, { "cite": "139 N. C., 347", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8652575 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/139/0347-01" ] }, { "cite": "173 N. C., 33", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11268715 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/173/0033-01" ] }, { "cite": "128 N. C., 336", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "157 N. C., 443", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8658217 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/157/0443-01" ] }, { "cite": "143 N. C., 179", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "opinion_index": 0 } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 998, "char_count": 22532, "ocr_confidence": 0.46, "pagerank": { "raw": 5.077892858359211e-07, "percentile": 0.9378039028530235 }, "sha256": "cba254974c882ff52505b49247e42421e69dab4979a828cb8e13533e04123278", "simhash": "1:7a4654e82e830c7c", "word_count": 4108 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:46:48.388810+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "H. MUNICK v. CITY OF DURHAM and the BOARD OF WATER COMMISSIONERS." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Clabic, C. J.\nThe testimony for the plaintiff presents one of the most singular occurrences that has come to this Court. The defendant offered no evidence, and the nonsuit was granted on the uncontradicted testimony for the plaintiff, as above set out. It is, therefore, taken as true, with all the inferences from it in the most favorable light to the plaintiff. But indeed there seems to he but one that could be drawn from it. The plaintiff, an old and feeble man, went to the water company on receiving a notice sent by it to pay his bill. He handed the clerk the money, and she gave him a receipt. A part of the payment was fifty \u201cpennies,\u201d that is, one-cent pieces, wrapped up together. While he was standing there and. she was counting the pennies, the manager of the water company came in, knocked the pennies off the counter on the floor, cursed the plaintiff, calling him a \u201cGr \u2014 d-d\u2014n Jew,\u201d told him to pick up the pennies, struck him, pulled him into another room, struck' him repeatedly, interrupted this to admit another patron, and after the latter went out, the superintendent resumed his beating of the plaintiff, who offered no resistance, and begged to be turned loose to go home,, shook him, choked him, put a towel over his face, suffocating him, and finally when the plaintiff tendered a dollar bill he told him to take his pennies and to leave and not come back.\nThe official (Bolton) was indicted in the criminal court and convicted and merely fined. Taking this occurrence to be as stated by the plaintiff, who is not contradicted and who proved a good character, a more brutal and unprovoked assault could not be presented. It was absolutely without justification. ' The pennies, under the United States statute, were a legal tender to the amount of 25 cents, U. S. Compiled Statutes, 1918, sec. 6514, and if the clerk had objected the water company could not have been compelled to receive beyond that sum in pennies, but it was no offense to tender a larger sum in one cent pieces, and the lady clerk accepted them, and even if the tender of fifty of them was for any reason objectionable (which does not appear), it certainly did not justify the treatment the plaintiff received.\nThere is no explanation of tbe conduct of tbe company\u2019s superintendent, and tbe only provocation given wbicb w\u00a7 can infer from tbe language used by Bolton is tbe fact tbat tbe plaintiff was a Jew. He made no other charge. Tbe treatment wbicb tbe plaintiff received is paralleled by tbat which is portrayed by Scott in Ivanhoe- in tbe treatment of Isaac of York seven centuries ago, and by Shakespeare as meted out to Jews in tbe Merchant of Venice, also centuries ago. Tbe world has long outlived this treatment of an historic race, except perhaps in \u201cdarkest Russia,\u201d when under tbe Czars.\nWhen Disraeli, later Prime Minister of tbe British Empire, was reproached in Parliament for being a Jew, be made tbe memorable reply, \u201cWhen tbe ancestors of tbe right honorable gentleman were painted savages roaming naked in tbe forests of Germany, my ancestors were princes in Israel and High Priests in tbe Temple of Solomon.\u201d\nEvery voter, every witness, and every official takes an oath upon a sacred Book, every sentence and word in which was written by a Jew. When tbe Savior was incarnated, after tbe flesh he was of tbe tribe of Ju\u2019dab, and His mother, whom a great church bolds immaculate, if not divine, has her name borne by millions throughout tbe civilized world. Whatever tbe shortcomings of any individual, it is strange tbat in this day of enlightenment such prejudices as were shown in this case should survive against tbe race to wbicb tbe plaintiff belongs. This plaintiff proved without contradiction a good character, and certainly there is no evidence wbicb justified in any degree the brutal assault made upon him for wbicb no excuse is offered. For some unexplained reason tbe brutal assailant, though convicted, was punished only by a fine. It is to be presumed, however, tbat tbe city discharged him from its service.\nTbe ground upon wbicb tbe nonsuit was asked and allowed, as presented in this Court, is that tbe defendants, and tbe city of Durham, are not responsible for tbe act of its agent, Harvey Bolton, superintendent of the water-works, or. that, at least, in making tbe assault be was not within tbe scope of bis authority in tbat be had no instructions from tbe defendants to commit such violence. At tbe time tbat tbe assault was made by tbe said Harvey Bolton, be was acting in bis capacity as agent. Had be been acting for a water company under private ownership it could not be contended tbat tbe corporation would not be responsible. He was there in tbe prosecution and furtherance of tbe duties assigned to him by tbe defendant municipality. Roberts v. R. R., 143 N. C., 179. Indeed, the facts are very similar to those in Bucken v. R. R., 157 N. C., 443, \u201cActing within the scope of employment means while on duty.\u201d Cook v. R. R., 128 N. C., 336.\nIn Ange v. Woodmen, 173 N. C., 33, it is said: \u201cIt is now fully.established tbat corporations may be- held liable for negligence and malicious torts, and the responsibility will be imputed whenever such wrongs are committed by their'employees and agents in the course of their employment and within its scope. ... In many of the cases and in reliable text-books 'course of employment\u2019 is stated and considered as sufficiently inclusive, but whether the one or the other descriptive term is used, they have the same significance in importing liability on the part of the principal when the agent is engaged in the work that its principal has employed or directed him to do, and in the effort to accomplish it. When such conduct comes within the description that constitutes an actionable wrong, the corporation principal, as in other cases of principal and agent, is liable not only for the act itself, but for the ways and means employed in the performance thereof.\u201d In 1 Thompson Negligence, sec. 554, it is pointed out that unless the above principle is maintained, \u201cIt will always be more safe and profitable for a man to conduct his business vicariously than in his own person. He would escape liability for the consequences of many acts connected with his business springing from the imperfections of human nature, because done by another for which he\u2019 would be responsible if done by himself. Meanwhile, the public, obliged to deal or come in contact with his agent, for injuries done by them must be left wholly without redress. He might delegate to persons pecuniarily irresponsible the care of large factories, of extensive mines, of ships at sea, or of railroad trains on land, and these persons, by the use of the extensive power thus committed to them, might inflict wanton and malicious injuries on third persons, without other restraint than that which springs from the imperfect execution of the criminal laws. A doctrine so fruitful of mischief could not long stand unshaken in an enlightened jurisprudence.\u201d This Court has often held the master liable, even if the agent was willful, provided it was committed in the course of his employment. Jackson v. Tel. Co., 139 N. C., 347.\nIndeed,- the doctrine goes further, and the principal is liable if one coming on the premises in connection with business dealings, or by invitation, is assaulted by one of its agents. This is settled by the leading case of Daniel v. R. R., 117 N. C., 592, and the numerous citations to the case in the Anno. Ed. Indeed, the same ruling has been uniformly made, and was reaffirmed at this term in Clark v. R. R., ante, 110.\nNot only is the corporation liable for injuries thus committed by its agents, but \u201cit is the duty of a carrier to protect its passengers from injury, insults, violence, and ill-treatment from its servants, other passengers, or third persons.\u201d Seawell v. R. R., 132 N. C., 859, citing numerous cases. Indeed, as far back as 1883, Ruffin, J., in Britton v. R. R., 88 N. C., 544, in terms ever since deemed settled law, said: \u201cThe carrier owes to the passenger the duty of protecting him from violence and assaults of other passengers and intruders, and will be responsible for Ms own or Ms servants\u2019 negligence in tbis particular, wben by tbe exercise of proper care tbe acts of violence might bave been foreseen and prevented.\u201d Tbis is cited witb approval in Seawell v. R. R., supra. Tbe same rule applies to any other corporation. In that case tbe passenger was assaulted by a mob, and tbe defendant was held liable because \u201cfour employees were present and it was shown that none of them made tbe slightest attempt to protect tbe plaintiff, and indeed there was evidence that two of them actively participated in, or at least encouraged tbe assault.\u201d Tbis case was reheard and reaffirmed, 133 N. C., 517, tbe Court saying: \u201cA careful examination of all tbe authorities shows no ease, and tbe appellants cite none, that under similar circumstances tbe railroad company has not been held liable, unless it exerted whatever power it could to protect tbe passenger from tbe mob,\u201d . . . adding, \u201cTbe cases are uniform, fastening liability upon a common carrier for failure to exert such protection as it could to a passenger against a mob,\u201d citing numerous cases.\nThat tbe corporation is liable for tbe mistreatment of one invited upon its premises, as tbis plaintiff was, or even if it fails to protect him as far as it can from violence by others while upon its premises, is beyond controversy. Indeed, tbe principle is so well settled that it needs no citation of authority.\nVe apprehend, however, that bis Honor did not nonsuit tbe plaintiff upon any views to tbe contrary, but doubtless upon tbe ground that tbe city was not liable. That contention by tbe defendant is equally untenable. In McIlhenney v. Wilmington, 127 N. C., 149, it is said: \u201cTbe law is too well settled to admit of debate. It may, on review of tbe authorities, which are uniform, be thus stated: When cities are acting in their corporate character, or in tbe exercise of powers for their own advantage, they are liable for damages caused by tbe negligence or torts of their officers or agents; but where they are exercising tbe judicial, discretionary, or legislative authority conferred by their charters or are discharging their duty solely for tbe public benefit, they are not liable for tbe torts or negligence of their officers, unless there is some statute which subjects them to liability therefor,\u201d citing numerous eases. Tbe distinction is very broad and clear, and is settled by all tbe authorities substantially as follows: Wherever \u00e1 city is exercising a governmental function, or police power, it is not responsible for tbe torts or negligence of its officers in tbe absence of a statute imposing such liability; but wben it is acting in its business capacity, as in operating a water or lighting plant or other business function, it is liable for the conduct of its agents and servants exactly to tbe same extent that any other business corporation would be liable under tbe same circumstances. Tbe distinction thus laid down in McIlhenney v. Wilmington, supra, has been often cited witb approval.\n. To sum up: The assault upon the plaintiff was of the most brutal and unprovoked nature. Indeed there is no evidence set up in this case that tends to palliate or mitigate the assault, which, it appears, was entirely unprovoked. There is no question that Bolton was the officer of the corporation, and was acting in the discharge of his duty, and that the plaintiff was on the premises at the invitation of the corporation; and further, it was the duty of the corporation not only to refrain from assaulting or injuring the plaintiff while there, but to protect him from any violence which it could reasonably have foreseen if offered by others; and still further, the city operating the water plant in its business capacity and not under its governmental or police power, on these facts the same liability was imposed upon the city as if it were a business plant.\nThe judgment entering a nonsuit must be\nReversed.", "type": "majority", "author": "Clabic, C. J." } ], "attorneys": [ "B. 0. Everett and William Or. Bramham for plaintiff.", "S. C. Chambers for defendants." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "H. MUNICK v. CITY OF DURHAM and the BOARD OF WATER COMMISSIONERS.\n(Filed 6 April, 1921.)\n1. Municipal Corporations\u2014 Cities and Towns\u2014 Water-works\u2014 Business Enterprises \u2014 Torts\u2014Damages.\nThe ownership and operation of a system by a city, charging its consumers for water it furnishes them, is in the nature of a business enterprise and not an act done in the exercise of governmental functions or police powers, as to which the city would not be liable for the negligence or torts of its agents or employees, unless under statutory provision to that effect.\n2. Same \u2014 Principal and Agent \u2014 Assault.\nWhere a city is engaged in supplying water to its citizens for pay, it is responsible in damages for an unjustifiable assault on one of its customers, while properly on its premises paying his water bill, by its superintendent.\n\u25a03. Same \u2014 Regal Tender \u2014 Assault.\nThe superintendent of the water-works of a city unjustifiably assaulted a customer after he had paid to another and proper employee the amount of his water bill, because he had paid a certain amount thereof in coppers, and had refused to take them from the floor where the superintendent had insultingly thrown them and pay in money in larger denominations: Meld, the city was responsible in damages notwithstanding the sum paid in coppers was in excess of legal tender of money in that denomination.\n4. Municipal Corporations \u2014 Cities and Towns \u2014 Premises\u2014Invitation\u2014 Legal Tender.\nWhere a customer of a city goes into the office it has provided to pay his water bill, it is upon the implied invitation of the city, and it is required to afford him reasonable protection from its own employees and others thereon.\nAppeal by plaintiff from Calvert, Jat April Term, 1920, of Durham.\nTbe water-works in the city of Durham are owned by the municipality and are operated by it under the supervision of the defendant Board of.' Water Commissioners. Among their employees was one Harvey Bolton,, who had general charge and supervision of said water system, and. among whose duties it was, assisted by others under his supervision, to.' keep the books containing the accounts against all customers purchasing; water, to render statements to said consumers for the water used by them, and collect all sums due and to give receipts upon payment of' said bills.\nThis is an action by the plaintiff against the city for damages for-assault and battery upon him by said Bolton.\nThe plaintiff, II. Munich, testified: \u201cI live on Poplar Street, and. conduct a grocery store. I have been living in Durham eleven years,, coming here from New York. I came to New York from Eussia, and am a Jew. I am married and have a family of four. I own my home- and two more houses and buy water from the city of Durham. On 17 April, 1919, I went to the water company\u2019s office, taking a bill which they had sent me for $4.50. No one was with me. I had been there a number of times before and paid my bills. Sometimes I would send the money and pay the bills by the children, and sometimes I would take it myself. This time I took it myself. When I came to the office I saw only the lady who collected. This was in the spring of the year, about twelve o\u2019clock, but I do not recall the day of the week. I do not know-the name of the lady, but I took the money and the bills in my hand and handed them to the lady. I took from my pocket three paper dollars, one silver dollar, and fifty cents in pennies, and gave it to the lady with the bills. The fifty cents in pennies was in one package and were not loose. They were rolled up like the bank fixes them. I got the pennies. in my retail business. The lady receipted my bills and I put them in my pocket and started to leave the office. I did not go outside of the door, and in about five minutes Mr. Bolton, who is manager of the water company, came in the office. I was standing beside the window, which is the regular place to pay bills when he came in. I had the bills. then in my pocket, and the bookkeeper started counting the pennies. Mr: Bolton came in and asked the lady, 'What are you counting?' nickels or dimes?\u2019 She told Mr. Bolton, 'Mr. Munich gave me fifty-pennies.\u2019 Mr. Bolton then came around tbe counter inside tbe office to tbe desk where sbe was. I was on tbe outside by tbe front door. Mr. Bolton took tbe pennies and pushed them off tbe counter onto tbe floor where I was standing. He was at tbe back end of the counter and I was at tbe front, and be pushed all of these pennies on tbe floor, and \u25a0came from tbe inside to where I was and said, \u2018Munick, pick up those pennies. They belong to you.\u2019 I said, \u2018Mr. Bolton, those pennies belong to you, not to me.\u2019 Mr. Bolton said, \u2018Munich, pick up those pennies; they belong to you.\u2019 I told him, \u2018The bill is paid, and those pennies belong to you.\u2019 That is all I said to him. I said, \u2018Those pennies are just as good as tbe dollars.\u2019 Mr. Bolton then locked tbe front door and took me by tbe jacket and called me \u2018a God-damned \u25a0Jew,\u2019 and said, \u2018Give me back my bills.\u2019 I did not say anything, and he bit me in tbe face. I did not resist, and tbe door was locked and I \u25a0could not get out. Tbe pennies were still on tbe floor. After be slapped me another man came to pay bis bill, and Mr. Bolton opened tbe door .and let him in and the man then went out. Mr. Bolton was standing \u25a0close to me and did not give me a chance to get out. Then I said, \u2018Please turn me loose, I have to go home.\u2019 I did not know where tbe \u25a0other man was then. When this other man went out Mr. Bolton locked tbe door again, took me by my jacket and pushed me in tbe back room, where tbe tools belonging to tbe city water company were. I said, \u2018Please turn me loose,\u2019 begging him to turn me loose; I do not remember bow many times. He did not close tbe door when be pushed me in tbe back room. Tbe front door was closed, but not tbe door in tbe back room. When be got me in tbe back room be took bis two bands about my neck and choked me. He was standing in front of me and I said, \u2018Please turn me loose; I\u2019ve got to go home.\u2019 He turned me loose for .about five minutes, and then took bold of me again, and choked me fast until it interfered with my breathing. It hurt me, and I told him to please turn me loose. When .be turned me loose tbe second time be called to some one to bring a towel. A gentleman brought tbe towel and be took that towel and put it over my face. This interfered with my breathing, as I could not breathe with it over my face. A little later I told him, \u2018Maybe I got a dollar.\u2019 \u2018I will take back tbe pennies, Mr. Bolton; turn me loose.\u2019 I started looking in my pockets, and I found \u25a0one paper dollar, and said, \u2018I am glad I got one dollar to settle with you.\u2019 Mr. Bolton took that dollar and gave me back tbe fifty pennies. I took them, and Mr. Bolton opened tbe front door and said, \u2018Get out of here, and don\u2019t come no more to pay your water bill.\u2019 That is all be said to me, and I left bis office. I bad been feeling mighty bad. I do not know bow long I was in there, but I begged Mr. Bolton to turn me loose, as I was sick and could not stand it. I bad some kind of sickness in my bead. I was back there in the office being subjected to this treatment about one-half hour from the time I went in. I went to Mr. Lunsford\u2019s office and asked him to phone for me a doctor. I do not know what Mr. Lunsford said. He was busy in his office. I left his office and went home. I used to trade with Mr. Lunsford. I did not see a doctor. The treatment I had received made me sick. \"When he choked me it hurt me for from eight to ten days. His finger prints where he choked me could be seen on my neck by everybody for eight or ten days. Everybody asked me what was the matter. It made me feel very bad when he cursed me. I had Mr. Bolton indicted, and he was in court and the court found him guilty and fined him. He did not resist. I have Mr. Lunsford, Mr. Speed, and Mr. Draughan for character witnesses.\u201d\nOn cross-examination, he said: \u201cI used to come to this water company\u2019s office before this, but had never been treated by any one that way before; and had never heard of any one being treated that way before or after I went there. This is the first time. I put my money on the counter and the young lady took the money and signed my receipt and gave me a receipt, and I put it in my pocket. I paid my bill in full, and all my matters were closed with the city. Mr. Bolton got mad because I paid the pennies. I was on the inside. I got to the door on the inside, and Mr. Bolton locked the door so I could not get out. I have never heard of folks being locked in; that was an unusual sort of thing. I do not know what he did with the key; I could not get out, and did not try. He grabbed hold of me, and I said, \u2018Please turn me loose.\u2019 He got madder and madder all the time. I was yelling, and he got the towel to stop me from yelling. The young lady was inside the office while this yelling was going on. She was not doing anything. I do not know who the man was that brought the towel, but he worked in the office. He did not do anything but give the towel to Mr. Bolton, I do not know his name. He was white, and not a very heavy man. I do not know him. I did not try the door. Mr. Bolton opened the door for another man, who paid his water bill, and then Mr. Bolton locked the door again. The man who brought the towel stayed there in the back. He just gave the towel to Mr. Bolton and nothing else. The young' lady who I gave the money to did not do anything. She stayed there in the office, looking through the window. She was there while Mr. Bolton was cursing me, where she could hear it. I indicted Mr. Bolton in the recorder\u2019s court. He pleaded guilty, and I am suing the city, whose agent he was.\u201d\nJ. O. Lunsford testified that he had known the plaintiff for 12 or 15 years; had sold him flour for several years, and knew his general character, and it was good. That on tbe day of tbis occurrence the plaintiff told him about having this trouble in the water company\u2019s office.\nA. J. Draughan also testified that he had known the plaintiff 10 or 12. years; that he had sold him goods, and knows his general character, and that it was good.\nAt the close of the above testimony the defendant offered no evidence, but moved for judgment of nonsuit, which was granted, and the plaintiff appealed.\nB. 0. Everett and William Or. Bramham for plaintiff.\nS. C. Chambers for defendants." }, "file_name": "0188-01", "first_page_order": 240, "last_page_order": 248 }