Matternes v. City of Winston-Salem
Supreme Court of North Carolina
1DissentJustice Huskins
The majority appears to be persuaded that the complaint alleges the City failed to correct or remove a dangerous, condi*17tion, as opposed to alleging affirmative acts of negligence. Reasoning that the plaintiff could not proceed against the State under the Tort Claims Act for failure of the Board of Transportation to remove a dangerous condition, the Court holds that the plaintiff could not proceed against the City which was under contract with the Board of Transportation to remove such a condition. I respectfully dissent from that view.
Prior to the Tort Claims Act, the doctrine of governmental…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- H. R. Moch Co. v. Rensselaer Water Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1928
- Gorrell v. Greensboro Water Supply Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1899
- Council v. Dickerson's, Inc.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1951
- Givens v. SellarsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1968
- Toone v. AdamsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1964
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.