Abrams v. Wright
| Decision Date | 20 February 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 19775,19775 |
| Citation | 262 S.C. 141,202 S.E.2d 859 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | Robert James ABRAMS and Cora T. Abrams, Appellants, v. H. J. WRIGHT and Gerald C. Wallace, Jr., d/b/a Seville Apartments of Greenville, S.C., Respondents. |
McDonald, Cox & Stilwell, Greenville, for appellants.
Wilkins & Wilkins, Greenville, for respondents.
In this action plaintiffs-appellants seek to recover damages allegedly caused by defendants impounding, concentrating and channelling surface water over land of the plaintiffs. The appeal is from an order of the circuit court granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants. Recognizing the established rule that, while surface water is regarded as a common enemy, an upper owner cannot collect surface water by any artificial means and cast it upon a lower land owner in a concentrated form, the court concluded that there was no evidence that the defendants had done so in this case.
Plaintiffs had owned and lived upon their property for approximately 17 years when the defendants commenced preparing the adjacent, higher tract as the site of construction of apartment buildings. While admittedly surface water has always flowed from property of the defendants across that of the plaintiffs, it is the contention of the plaintiffs that the activities of the defendants has resulted in casting a much larger flow of water upon them and in a concentrated form at certain locations upon their property.
The motion for summary judgment was heard upon the pleadings and a deposition of the plaintiff, Robert J. Abrams, taken by the defendants. The only issue before the trial court or before this Court is whether such deposition established that there was 'no genuine issue as to any material fact * * *,' Circuit Court Rule 44(c). We quote the following pertinent language, which is here quite applicable, from the case of Thevenot v. Commercial Travelers Mutual Accident Association of America, 259 S.C. 235, 191 S.E.2d 251,
Viewing the materials which were before the court on motion for summary judgment in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Strother v. Lexington County Recreation Com'n
...judgment is not appropriate where further inquiry into the facts is desirable to clarify the application of the law. Abrams v. Wright, 262 S.C. 141, 202 S.E.2d 859 (1974). Id. at 405, 409 S.E.2d at The case of Baughman, et al. v. American Tel. and Tel. Co., et al., 306 S.C. 101, 410 S.E.2d ......
-
Johnson v. Phillips
...surface water onto the Phillipses' tract. The law required him to let the jury determine that issue also. Cf. Abrams v. Wright, 262 S.C. 141, 202 S.E.2d 859 (1974) (summary We next address the issue of entering judgment for Smith on a verdict of "no dollars" in damages. The Phillipses conte......
- State v. Wilkes
-
Dalon v. Golden Lanes, Inc.
...care in providing security under the circumstances given its specific knowledge about Carroll's past conduct. See Abrams v. Wright, 262 S.C. 141, 202 S.E.2d 859 (1974) (summary judgment should be granted only where it is clear that no issue of fact is involved and inquiry into the facts is ......