Campbell v. South Carolina State Highway Dept.
| Decision Date | 17 April 1964 |
| Docket Number | No. 18203,18203 |
| Citation | 135 S.E.2d 838,244 S.C. 186 |
| Parties | Watson H. CAMPBELL, Sr., Respondent, v. SOUTH CAROLINA STATE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT, Appellant. |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
Daniel R. McLeod, Atty. Gen., Grady L. Patterson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Columbia, Pyle & Pyle, Greenville, for appellant.
Younts & Spence, Greenville, for respondent.
This is an action to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained as a result of the negligent maintenance of South Carolina Highway 118 by the State Highway Department. The trial Judge overruled timely motions by the defendant for nonsuit and directed verdict. The jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff; thereafter defendant's motions for judgment n. o. v. and in the alternative for a new trial were refused and this appeal followed.
On June 16, 1962, plaintiff, accompanied by his son, was operating a motorcycle in a northerly direction on Highway 118 in Greenville County. Highway 118 is a narrow dirt road, for the most part single lane, leading over Hog Back Mountain to the North Carolina line. The testimony reveals that plaintiff, on a clear day, while riding a motorcycle owned by his son, with the son riding behind him, was proceeding between 10 and 15 m. p. h. when he observed a 'wet spot' in the right hand rut in which he was traveling that appeared to be slick. He then crossed over to the left hand rut and prepared to change to low gear to cross a 'little washed place.' The road caved in, throwing plaintiff over the handle bars onto the road causing his injury. The resulting depression or hole in the road was estimated to be approximately 6 feet long and approximately 2 feet deep. Plaintiff testified he was approximately 2 to 3 feet from the shoulder and that portion of the road appeared to be dry and solid, although some of the shoulder had been washed out.
The following questions are stated in defenant's brief:
This action is brought under Section 33-229, Code of Laws of South Carolina 1962, and as the Highway Department is the State itself, it may be sued for damages only upon the terms and conditions of the enabling Statute. Sanders v. State Highway Department, 212 S.C. 227, 47 S.E.2d 306. Section 33-232, Code of Laws of South Carolina 1962, places the additional burden on plaintiff to allege and prove that he did not bring about the injury by his own negligence, or negligently contribute thereto.
In order for plaintiff to recover he must prove by the preponderance of the evidence that the Highway Department was guilty of the acts of negligence, or one or more of them, charged against it, and that such acts of negligence were the proximate cause of plaintiff's injuries and that plaintiff was not guilty fo contributory negligence. Lusk v. State Highway Department 181 S.C. 101, 186 S.E. 786; Cooper v. State Highway Department, 183 S.C. 155, 190 S.E. 499; Bunton v. South Arolina State Highway Department,186 S.C. 463, 196 S.E. 188.
The Highway Department is charged with negligently failing to repair, inspect or warn the traveling public of an alleged defect in the highway. In determining whether the Highway Department was negligent the evidence must be considered in the light most favorable to plaintiff. Epps v. South Carolina Highway Department, 209 S.C. 125, 39 S.E.2d 198.
Although the Highway Department is not an insurer of the safety of travelers over its highways, it has the duty to keep the highways in a reasonably safe condition for travel and to erect and maintain sufficient signs, guardrails and warnings, as may enable users of said highways, exercising ordinary care and prudence, to avoid injury to themselves and others. Cooper v. South Carolina Highway Department, supra, 183 S.C. 155, 190 S.E. 499.
The Highway Department is liable for injuries caused by efects or obstructions in highways only where it has actual or constructive notice of the defect or obstruction. See Floyd v. Town of Lake City, 231 S.C. 516, 99 S.E.2d 181; Bruce v. City of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McCall by Andrews v. Batson
...S.C. 230, 153 S.E.2d 687 (1967). 25. Chilton v. City of Columbia, 247 S.C. 407, 147 S.E.2d 642 (1966). 26. Campbell v. S.C. State Highway Dep't, 244 S.C. 186, 135 S.E.2d 838 (1964). 27. Jones v. Jones, 243 S.C. 600, 135 S.E.2d 233 (1964). 28. Cochran v. City of Sumter, 242 S.C. 382, 131 S.E......
-
Strother v. Lexington County Recreation Com'n
...appear to define actual notice as express notice and inquiry notice as constructive notice. See Campbell v. South Carolina Highway Dep't, 244 S.C. 186, 191, 135 S.E.2d 838, 840 (1964) ("There is no evidence that [the] defendant had actual notice of the dangerous condition of the road at thi......
-
Strother v. LEXINGTON COUNTY RECREATION
... ... No. 24823 ... Supreme Court of South Carolina ... Heard March 5, 1998 ... Decided ... there is nothing left to investigate); Campbell v. S.C. Highway Dep't, 244 S.C. 186, 135 S.E.2d ... an action may not be maintained against the State without its consent. McCall by Andrews v. Batson, ... ...
-
Saxon v. S.C. Dep't of Transp.
... Courtney Danielle Saxon, Appellant, v. South Carolina Department of Transportation and Thomas ... distance. Additionally, a highway patrolman, who investigated ... the ... Carolina Tort Claims Act provides that the State, its ... agencies, political subdivisions, ... on Campbell v. South Carolina State Highway ... Dep't, ... ...