Volume 199 — North Carolina Court of Appeals Reports

<bold>1. Arrest — probable cause — informant's</bold> <bold>corroborated information — surveillance information</bold> <block_quote> Officers had probable cause to arrest defendant prior to an illegal entry into his apartment, and the trial court did not err by denying defendant's motion to suppress his statements to deputies and the fruits thereof.</block_quote> <bold>2. Appeal and Error — record — index —</bold> <bold>required</bold> <block_quote> Sanctions were imposed upon appellate counsel for failure to include an index in the record on appeal.</block_quote>

<bold>1. Appeal and Error — appealability —</bold> <bold>improper materials — summary judgment motion</bold> <block_quote> The Court of Appeals disregarded those materials cited by plaintiffs in a negligence case (such as unverified pleadings and unsupported factual allegations) that may not properly be considered on a motion for summary judgment.</block_quote> <bold>2. Cities and Towns — municipal liability for</bold> <bold>waterway maintenance — storm water drainage pipes —</bold> <bold>no duty to exercise reasonable care to inspect, maintain, and</bold> <bold>repair</bold> <block_quote> The trial court did not err in a negligence case by granting the City's motion for summary judgment in an action seeking damages for two sinkholes that developed on plaintiffs' property as a result of the failure of storm water drainage pipes running under plaintiffs' parking lot. Although plaintiffs contend the City had an affirmative duty to exercise reasonable care to inspect, maintain, and repair the storm drain pipes buried under plaintiffs' property, plaintiffs admitted in their brief that no stormwater structures owned by the City were located on plaintiffs' property or on immediately adjoining properties, and it was undisputed that the pipes under plaintiffs' property were put in place by a previous owner of the property and were owned solely by plaintiffs.</block_quote><page_number>Page 342</page_number> <bold>3. Utilities — collection of public utility fee</bold> <bold>— no duty to maintain privately owned pipes</bold> <block_quote> Plaintiffs in a negligence case have not shown that the City's duty to maintain its own pipes by virtue of a public utility fee should create a duty to maintain plaintiffs' privately owned pipes, nor have plaintiffs cited any authority suggesting that the City's collection of storm water utility fees gave rise, to an affirmative duty to inspect, maintain, and repair a privately owned drainage pipe on private property.</block_quote> <bold>4. Negligence — causation — directing</bold> <bold>unreasonable amount of storm water runoff into pipes</bold> <block_quote> Although plaintiffs alternatively contend in a negligence case that the City's liability for plaintiffs' property damage arises from a duty to refrain from directing an unreasonable amount of storm water runoff into pipes that eventually flow into plaintiffs' pipes, there was insufficient evidence of causation to support this theory.</block_quote> <bold>5. Appeal and Error — preservation of issues —</bold> <bold>failure to argue</bold> <block_quote> Although plaintiffs contend they are entitled to equitable relief even if they failed to prove the elements of negligence, plaintiffs only brought a claim for negligence against the City and asserted no claim based on any equitable principle. The Court of Appeals declined to adopt a new rule imposing a duty on the City to exercise reasonable care.</block_quote>

<bold>1. Appeal and Error — preservation of issues</bold> <bold>— failure to argue</bold> <block_quote> An assignment of error not argued in Defendants' brief was deemed abandoned.</block_quote> <bold>2. Workers' Compensation — causation — expert</bold> <bold>testimony — speculation — and</bold> <bold>conjecture</bold> <block_quote> The Industrial Commission erred in a workers' compensation case by finding that plaintiff's right knee injury was causally related to the compensable left knee injury where plaintiff's self-diagnosis was inadequate to establish medical causation and the expert medical testimony presented was insufficiently reliable to qualify as competent evidence on causation.</block_quote> <bold>3. Workers' Compensation — sufficiency of findings</bold> <bold>of fact — conflicting as a matter of law</bold> <block_quote> The Industrial Commission erred in a workers' compensation case by awarding plaintiff temporary total disability payments for a period of time and this issue is remanded to the Commission for further findings of fact. The Commission upon remand should determine the date plaintiff left the employ of defendant in North Carolina, where and when she worked in South Carolina, and the reason for her termination in South Carolina.</block_quote> <bold>4. Appeal and Error — preservation of issues —</bold> <bold>failure to argue</bold> <block_quote> Assignments of error that defendants failed to argue in their brief are deemed abandoned under N.C. R. App. P. 28(b)(6).</block_quote>