Sides v. Cabarrus Memorial Hospital, Inc.
287 N.C. 14, 213 S.E.2d 297, 1975 N.C. LEXIS 1062 (1975)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The operation of a public hospital by a county or city is a proprietary function, rather than a governmental function, thereby subjecting such hospitals to tort liability for the negligent acts of their employees within the scope of their employment.
Facts:
- The Board of County Commissioners of Cabarrus County was authorized by Chapter 307, 1935 Public-Local and Private Laws, to call an election for the issuance of bonds and a tax levy to establish a public hospital.
- If approved by voters, the County Commissioners were to issue and sell bonds, with proceeds and collected taxes paid to the Cabarrus County Treasurer for a hospital interest and sinking fund and a maintenance fund.
- The County Commissioners were required to appoint a Board of Trustees, one from each voting precinct, which would then appoint a seven-member executive committee from the trustees.
- The county treasurer served as Treasurer for the executive committee, and all hospital moneys were deposited in the county treasury to the credit of a 'hospital fund'.
- The executive committee was generally tasked with carrying out the establishment and maintenance of a county public hospital and was required to file annual reports and certify maintenance needs to the County Commissioners.
- The 'Cabarrus County Hospital' was declared a body corporate with powers including receiving gifts, suing and being sued, and performing necessary acts for its creation, intended for the benefit of Cabarrus County inhabitants.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff Sides initiated a legal action (presumably a tort claim for negligence) against Cabarrus Memorial Hospital, seeking damages.
- Cabarrus Memorial Hospital likely argued in a lower court that it was a state agency, asserting that exclusive original jurisdiction over the claim was vested solely in the North Carolina Industrial Commission under the North Carolina Tort Claims Act.
- The case proceeded to the North Carolina Court of Appeals, which rendered a judgment regarding the hospital's status and the nature of its function.
- The North Carolina Supreme Court granted review of the Court of Appeals' judgment to determine if Cabarrus Memorial Hospital was a political subdivision of the county or state, and whether its operation was a governmental or proprietary function.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the construction, maintenance, and operation of a public hospital by a county or city constitute a proprietary function, thereby rendering the hospital liable for the negligent acts of its employees?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Copeland
Yes, the construction, maintenance, and operation of a public hospital by a county or city constitutes a proprietary function, rendering the hospital liable for the negligent acts of its employees. First, the Court determined that Cabarrus Memorial Hospital was an agency of Cabarrus County, not a separate state agency. This was based on Chapter 307, 1935 Public-Local and Private Laws, which granted the county authority to levy special taxes for operation and maintenance, control its operations through the county board of commissioners, and explicitly stated the hospital's executive committee was to establish a 'county public hospital.' This interpretation was supported by rulings from various state and federal agencies (Attorney General, IRS, Commissioner of Revenue, Employment Security Commission) that had held the hospital to be a county instrumentality. The Court also noted differences between the special act and general law, such as a lower tax rate and appointed (rather than elected) trustees, reinforcing county control. Second, addressing whether the hospital's operation was governmental or proprietary (a question of first impression for this specific activity), the Court reviewed precedents on governmental-proprietary distinctions. It observed that activities typically classified as proprietary involve a 'monetary charge' of some type, even if the overall operation is not for profit (e.g., public parks, airports). In contrast, governmental functions are those historically performed by government and not ordinarily by private corporations (e.g., jails, police). Since hospitals derive 'substantial revenues' from services like room rents and laboratory work, this was deemed a crucial factor. Emphasizing a modern trend to restrict governmental immunity due to expanded municipal activities, availability of liability insurance, and the injustice to injured individuals, the Court concluded that operating a public hospital is not a 'traditional' service of local governmental units and therefore classified it as a proprietary function.
Analysis:
This case represents a significant step in North Carolina's jurisprudence on governmental immunity, particularly concerning public hospitals. By classifying the operation of public hospitals as a proprietary function, the Court signals a clear move away from a broad application of immunity for municipal entities performing services that generate revenue or are also offered by private entities. The decision simplifies the often-confusing governmental/proprietary distinction in this context, providing a more predictable framework for liability. It aligns North Carolina with a modern trend of restricting governmental immunity, thereby enhancing accountability for public hospitals and potentially encouraging them to secure adequate liability insurance, which offers greater protection for individuals harmed by negligence.
