Hicks v. City of Columbia, 16901
| Decision Date | 05 August 1954 |
| Docket Number | No. 16901,16901 |
| Parties | HICKS v. CITY OF COLUMBIA. |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
Isadore S. Bernstein, Columbia, for appellant.
Paul A. Cooper, Columbia, for respondent.
This appeal is from an order sustaining a demurrer to appellant's complaint and poses the sole question of whether or not the complaint which alleges that plaintiff was injured by reason of a defect in a swing in a public park within the City of Columbia, said defect arising out of the neglect and mismanagement of the city, states a cause of action under Section 47-70 of the South Carolina Code of Laws for 1952.
The complaint, omitting the formal parts, alleges that plaintiff, a minor, is a resident of the City of Columbia and that on or about March 29, 1952, at about 8 o'clock, p. m., the plaintiff visited Valencia Park in the City of Columbia, the same being a public park maintained, operated and controlled by the defendant for the purpose of providing recreational facilities and activities for the youth of the City of Columbia; that among the amusement devices and instrumentalities at the said park under the management and control of the defendant are certain swings attached to cross bars by means of chains, to permit swinging thereon by persons attending the said park; that at the time aforementioned, the plaintiff entered upon one of the swings at the said park under the control of the defendant and began swinging thereon; that while plaintiff was so engaged, the said swing was caused to and did break, by reason of the negligence and carelessness of the defendant in the management and control of the same as hereinafter alleged, causing the plaintiff to be thrown to the ground with great force and violence, and causing severe bodily injuries to the plaintiff as hereinafter alleged.
That the injuries and resulting damages to the plaintiff were caused and occasioned directly and proximately by the negligence and carelessness of the defendant, its agents and servants, in the following particulars, among others, to wit:
a. In inviting persons, particularly the plaintiff herein, to attend a public park under the management and control of the defendant without keeping the same in a reasonably safe condition to avoid injuries and damages to them.
b. In failing to keep the swings at the said park in a reasonably safe condition for the use of persons lawfully thereon, particularly the plaintiff herein.
c. In causing and permitting the swings at the said park under the management and control of the defendant to become defective and dangerous to the lives the safety of persons lawfully using the same, particularly the plaintiff herein.
d. In failure to notify or to warn the plaintiff of the danger to which he was exposed by reason of the defective condition of the swing at the said park under the management and control of the defendant.
e. In failing to make any inspection of the swings at the said park under the control of the defendant so as to discover that the same was defective and dangerous to the lives and safety of persons lawfully using the same, particularly the plaintiff herein.
f. In failing to pose adequate attendants or other supervisory personnel at the said park for the protection of persons lawfully using the facilities thereof, particularly the plaintiff herein.
g. In failing to take any precautions whatsoever to prevent the swing at said park under the control of the defendant from becoming defective and dangerous to the lives and safety of persons lawfully using the same, particularly the plaintiff herein.
h. In keeping and permitting an instrumentality under the control and management of the defendant to become defective and dangerous to the lives and safety of persons using the same, in violation of Section 47-70 of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McCall by Andrews v. Batson
...227 S.C. 458, 88 S.E.2d 617 (1955). 39. Bell v. City of Anderson, 226 S.C. 145, 84 S.E.2d 343 (1954). 40. Hicks v. City of Columbia, 225 S.C. 553, 83 S.E.2d 199 (1954). 41. Hill v. City of Greenville, 223 S.C. 392, 76 S.E.2d 294 (1953). 42. Jeff Hunt Mach. Co. v. State Highway Dep't, 217 S.......
-
Collins v. City of Greenville
...who have occasion to pass over them for the purpose of business, convenience, or pleasure. * * *' In the case of Hicks v. City of Columbia, 225 S.C. 553, 83 S.E.2d 199, 201, an action was brought by a minor against the City of Columbia for injuries sustained as a result of an alleged defect......
-
Floyd v. Town of Lake City
...Reeves v. City of Easley, 167 S.C. 231, 166 S.E. 120; Abernathy v. City of Columbia, 213 S.C. 68, 48 S.E.2d 585; Hicks v. City of Columbia, 225 S.C. 53, 83 S.E.2d 199. The strip of ground lying between a sidewalk and the curbing, variously referred to as 'parkway', 'parking', or 'grassplot'......
-
Belue v. City of Spartanburg
...in this state, including Boyce v. Lancaster County Natural Gas Authority, 266 S.C. 398, 223 S.E.2d 769 (1976); Hicks v. City of Columbia, 225 S.C. 553, 83 S.E.2d 199 (1954); Furr v. City of Rock Hill, 235 S.C. 44, 109 S.E.2d 697 (1959); and a more recent case of Teague v. Cherokee County Me......