Court Opinion

ID: 9812761
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 22:47:29.628781+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:26:27.868897
License: Public Domain

DeviN, J.,
concurring in result: The allegation in the' complaint that the truck which struck the plaintiff was owned and operated in connection with the city’s public utilities, from which the city derived a substantial profit, saves it from a demurrer. Hamilton v. Rocky Mount, 199 N. C., 504, 154 S. E., 844. However, I do not think this ruling should be extended to holding that the operation of a city truck, used for public purposes and being driven on a public' street in the discharge of a duty imposed for the public benefit, should burden the tax*344payers with liability for an injury incident to such operation, notwithstanding the discharge of' such duty might also tend to protect the city from liability with respect to the maintenance of its streets. Hodges v. Charlotte, 214 N. C., 737, 200 S. E., 889; Lewis v. Hunter, 212 N. C., 504, 193 S. E., 814; Broome v. Charlotte, 208 N. C., 729, 182 S. E., 325. I do not think liability should be imposed as the result of considering matters beyond the immediate purpose and province of the operation involved, which was for the protection of the public.
ScheNCk, J., joins in this opinion.