Ancrum v. State Highway Depart-ment, 13266.

• Citation: 161 S.E. 98
• Decision Date: 04 November 1931
• Docket Number: No. 13266.,13266.
• Parties: ANCRUM . v. STATE HIGHWAY DEPART-MENT.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

161 S.E. 98

ANCRUM .

v.STATE HIGHWAY DEPART-MENT.

No. 13266.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

Nov. 4, 1931.

Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Kershaw County; W. H. Townsend, Judge.

Action by Thomas Ancrum against the State Highway Department of South Carolina. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendant appeals.

Reversed and 'remanded.

John M. Daniel, Atty. Gen., and Cordie Page and J. Ivey Humphrey, Asst. Attys. Gen., for appellant.

John DeLoach and Mendel L. Smith, both of Camden, for respondent.

STABLER, J.

The undisputed facts out of which this action arose are as follows: In the fall of 1929, the part of the state highway adjoining the bridge over Hanging Rock creek in Kershaw county was undermined by flood waters, due to very heavy rainfall. In order that traffic might pass, the defendant built a ramp or temporary bridge over that portion of the highway undermined, leading up to the main bridge over the creek. On October 7, 1929, the plaintiff drove his car over this ramponto the main bridge, where, for some reason, the car broke through the railings and was precipitated to the ground below.

The plaintiff alleged that in this accident his automobile was damaged and he was injured in his person through the negligent acts of the defendant in placing a mound of sand about twelve inches high on the end of the bridge, rendering the highway dangerous to travel, so that, when he ran upon and over this high mound, he lost control of his car, which consequently ran into the side of the bridge, breaking through and falling to the ground some ten feet below; and that the defendant was also negligent in failing to post a proper and timely notice or warning of danger to persons using the highway at that point. He also alleged that he suffered damages in the sum of $4,000 by reason of his personal injuries, and that his automobile was damaged in the sum of $550, and sought judgment for $4,550.

The defendant pleaded a general denial, and alleged that the highway at the point in question was in a reasonably safe condition for traffic for persons traveling in a prudent and careful manner; that proper signs, signals, and notices had been placed along and posted on the highway as a warning to all persons; and that if the plaintiff had suffered any injury as alleged, it was due to his own negligence in the imprudent and careless driving of his car and in failing to heed the posted warnings and signs. The jury gave a verdict for $250 for property damage and $500 for personal injuries. From judgment entered thereon the defendant appealed.

On trial of the case, the plaintiff attempted to prove the alleged filing with the defendant of his claims—for property damage and personal injuries—by parol testimony and copies thereof. The defendant ^objected on the ground that such proof would be in violation of the best evidence rule, no notice having been given to it to produce the original claims. Thereupon, plaintiff made demand on defendant to produce them, but counsel for defendant stated he knew nothing about them and did not have them. The trial judge then overruled the objection and admitted the testimony. To this ruling of the court, the defendant excepts and imputes error.

Section 3 of the Act March 10, 1928 (35 St. at Large, p. 2056) provides: "That a claim giving the date, place...