Bramlett v. City of Laurens

• Decision Date: 27 June 1900
• Citation: 36 S.E. 444,58 S.C. 60
• Parties: BRAMLETT v. CITY OF LAURENS.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

36 S.E. 444

58 S.C. 60

BRAMLETT v. CITY OF LAURENS.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

June 27, 1900

Appeal from common pleas circuit court of Laurens county; O. W Buchanan, Judge.

Action by A. W. Bramlett against the city of Laurens. Judgment for defendant. Plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Ball Simkins & Ball, for appellant.

F. P McGowan and W. R. Richey, for respondent.

GARY A. J.

As the appeal herein is from an order sustaining a demurrer to the complaint, it will be necessary to set it out. It is as follows: "The plaintiff complains, and alleges: (1) That the plaintiff, at and before the times hereinafter mentioned, was the owner of a lot on Harper street, and the dwellings and buildings thereon, in the city of Laurens. (2) That the city of Laurens is a municipal corporation, organized under the laws of the state of South Carolina, with power to sue and be sued. (3) That formerly for more than twenty years, and for time immemorial, a sidewalk, suitable and convenient for pedestrians, existed and was maintained on the eastern side of the said street, of which street it was a part, and that the lot of said defendant was immediately adjacent to, and abutted upon, said sidewalk, and that access to the said sidewalk from the said lot was easy and unobstructed, as well as access across it by horses and vehicles, to that part of the street traveled by horses and vehicles. (4) That the plaintiff was and is entitled to easy and unobstructed access, both to the sidewalk of the said street and to that part used for travel by horses and vehicles. (5) That during the year 1898 the defendant, through its officers and servants, changed and altered the said street without the consent of the plaintiff, and against his will, destroying the said sidewalk, and building a new sidewalk in another part of the street, building the said new sidewalk a considerable height above the level of the old sidewalk, and above the level of the plaintiff's lot; thus rendering the new sidewalk difficult and inconvenient of access, and rendering access from the said lot to that part of the street used by horses and vehicles impracticable. (6) That the said alterations and changes in the said street were made by the defendant negligently, and without reasonable care and skill, to the injury of the plaintiff, and in wanton disregard of the right of the plaintiff. (7) That the said changes and alterations in the said street greatly injured and impaired the appearance of the said lot, thereby diminishing its value. (8) That the defendant elevated, and thereby altered, the grade of that part of the street used for horse and vehicle travel, without the consent of the plaintiff, and against his will, rendering impracticable his access thereto. (9) That by the changes and alterations in the said street by the defendant, and by the negligent manner in which they were made, without reasonable care and skill, the defendant has been damaged five hundred dollars."

The defendant demurred to the complaint on the ground that it did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, in the following particulars: "(1) In that the action is predicated upon a claim for consequential damages, alleged to have been caused by the grading of the public street and sidewalk within the limits of said street, and that no right of action exists at law for said alleged damage, in the absence of any statute to that effect, and there is no statute giving such a right of action in this state. (2) Because the charter does not give any right of action for damages which any abutting landowner may sustain in consequence of work or repairs done upon public streets by the municipal authorities. (3) Because no right of action is given against the city of Laurens by any act of the legislature for any damage sustained away from and off the street. (4) Because the complaint does not state the facts connected with the repairs referred to in the complaint, from which any negligence occurred in the raising the grade of the street or sidewalk." The circuit judge sustained the demurrer on the aforesaid grounds, and the appeal herein brings in review the correctness of his ruling.

If the complaint states facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, it did not arise ex...