## Facts

- Erik Dominic Williams drowned on June 10, 2007 at “Fun Junktion,” a public park owned by Pasquotank County and operated by its Parks & Recreation Department.
- The drowning occurred in a swimming area within the park (“Swimming Hole”) that could be rented for private parties.
- The Estate sued the County and its Parks & Recreation Department for negligence in operating and supervising the swimming area.
- Defendants asserted governmental immunity, contending operation of the park was a governmental function.
- A trial court denied defendants’ limited motion for summary judgment based on governmental immunity.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed, using a four-factor governmental/proprietary test and treating “whether a private entity could perform the activity” as the most important factor; it characterized park operation as proprietary.
- The Supreme Court granted discretionary review to address the proper analytical framework for governmental immunity.

## Issues

1. Whether the Court of Appeals used the correct legal framework for deciding if a local government activity is governmental or proprietary for purposes of governmental immunity.
2. Whether, under the correct framework, the County was entitled to governmental immunity for the Estate’s negligence claims arising from operation of the park.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court vacated the Court of Appeals’ decision and remanded for further proceedings.
- The Court rejected the Court of Appeals’ approach to the governmental/proprietary inquiry, including treating private performability as the controlling factor.
- The Court clarified that statutory directives, including the Recreation Enabling Act provision stating parks and recreation programs are a “proper governmental function,” must be given substantial weight.
- The Court expressly declined to decide, on the existing record, whether defendants were entitled to governmental immunity in this case.

## Legal Principles

- Governmental immunity turns on whether the challenged conduct occurred during performance of a governmental function (immunity generally applies) or a proprietary function (immunity generally does not apply).
- Courts must give substantial weight to legislative classifications of activities as governmental, including statutory statements that operation and maintenance of parks and recreation programs are governmental functions.
- Judicial multi-factor tests for classifying governmental versus proprietary functions cannot override or minimize controlling statutory guidance and established precedent.
- The fact that private entities can perform an activity is relevant but not dispositive and should not be treated as the most important factor when statutes speak directly to the activity’s character.

## Conclusion

The Supreme Court vacated the lower appellate decision because it applied an incorrect methodology for governmental immunity and remanded for reconsideration under a framework that prioritizes legislative designations—particularly the statutory classification of parks and recreation as governmental—without deciding whether the County ultimately was immune on these facts.


Estate of Williams v. Pasquotank Cnty. Parks & Recreation Dep’t, 366 N.C. 195, 732 S.E.2d 137 (2012)