Legal Opinion

James v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided February 15, 1983No. 8226SC95PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

WELLS, Judge.

In their motion for directed verdict, defendants asserted two specific grounds: one, limited immunity, and two, an insufficient showing of negligence. Both grounds are, therefore, before us in this appeal, and we shall deal with them seriatim.

I. Immunity. The record shows that, pursuant to the provisions of G.S. 115-53, the Board was insured against tort liability. The purchase of such insurance constitutes a waiver of governmental immunity by defendant Board. See Clary v. Board of Education, 286 N.C. 525, 212 S.E. 2d 160 (1975). We therefore assume that the trial court’s…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Manganello v. Permastone, Inc.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1977
  2. Foster v. Winston-Salem Joint VentureSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1981
  3. Moore v. CrumptonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1982
  4. Toone v. AdamsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1964
  5. Clary v. Alexander County Board of EducationSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1975

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Roberts v. Robertson County Board of EducationCourt of Appeals of Tennessee · 1985
  2. Brown v. North Carolina Wesleyan College, Inc.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1983
  3. Winters v. LeeCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1994
  4. Doe v. United StatesDistrict Court, M.D. North Carolina · 2019
  5. John and Jane Doe 2 v. Ortho-Clinical Diagnostics, Inc.District Court, M.D. North Carolina · 2004

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API