Betts v. . Jones

Adams, J. The plaintiff alleges that the school committeemen, disregarding known facts and the repeated protests of many patrons of Peach-land high school, in employing Wilson Jones “secured a driver known to them to be unfit, unsafe, nondependable, and reckless,” and that they acted wilfully, wrongfully, maliciously, and corruptly. By demurring the defendants admit these allegations. Andrews v. R. R., 200 N. C., 483; Yarborough v. Park Commission, 196 N. C., 284; Sandlin v. Wilmington, 185 N. C., 257. The law as generally administered recognizes a distinction between public duties which are ministerial in character and those which require the exercise of judgment or discretion. This Court has held that as a rule a private action for tort cannot be maintained against an agency of the State, but for the negligent breach of a public duty which is administrative and imposed entirely for the public benefit an officer may be held individually liable to a person who has been injured by his negligence if the statute creating the office or imposing the duty makes provision for such liability. It has also' been held that where the powers conferred upon a public officer involve the exercise of judgment or discretion he is not liable to a private person for neglect to exercise such powers or for the consequences of the lawful exercise of them if he acts within the scope of his authority and without malice or corruption. Hipp v. Farrell, 169 N. C., 551; S. c., 173 N. C., 167; Carpenter v. R. R., 184 N. C., 400. If, however, his act is corrupt or malicious he may be liable in his personal capacity for the injury inflicted by him. Spruill v. Davenport, 178 N. C., 364. We may assume that a school committee in the discharge of the duties imposed by law generally acts as an agency of the State; but this action is not prosecuted against the committee in its representative capacity as such agency, and in this respect it differs materially from Benton v. Board of Education, 201 N. C., 653, Cathey v. Charlotte, 197 N. C., *592 309, Scales v. Winston-Salem, 189 N. C., 469, and similar cases. In Hyder v. Henderson County, 190 N. C., 663 and in Lassiter v. Adams, 196 N. C., 711, the Court was careful to observe that there was no allegation that the defendants had acted corruptly or maliciously. Here the committeemen are sued in their personal capacity; and while it is true that if a person is doing a lawful thing in a lawful way his conduct is not actionable though it may result in damage to another, still, as said in Spruill v. Davenport, supra, when a person goes outside of his line of duty and acts corruptly or with malice he becomes personally liable for consequent damages. This is the question which the complaint and the demurrer present. Did the defendants act maliciously or corruptly, as alleged? We do not understand the inquiry to be merely whether disregard of the patrons’ protests was a corrupt or malicious act, because the language of the complaint is susceptible of a broader construction. What the proof, if any, may be we have no means of knowing. If the committeemen were not actuated by malice or corruption there can be no recovery; but we are now dealing with the allegations of the complaint and the admissions of the demurrer. When an answer is filed issues will be raised for determination by a jury. It will be noted that the demurrer of Wilson Jones is substantially the same as that of his eodefendants. Judgment Affirmed.