Hill v. Laurens County

• Decision Date: 17 June 1891
• Citation: 13 S.E. 318,34 S.C. 141
• Parties: Hill v. Laurens County.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

13 S.E. 318

34 S.C. 141

Hill

v.Laurens County.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

June 17, 1891.

Defective Highways—Liability of County.

Where one receives injuries from defects In a road which is a deviation from the regular highway laid out by the overseer of the road hands at the suggestion of the neighbors, and without the authority of the county commissioners, who alone are empowered by law to alter highways, he cannot recover against the county under Gen. St. S. C § 1087, which provides that "any person who shall receive bodily injury * * * through a defect in the repair of a highway * * * may recover in an action against the county, " etc.

Appeal from common pleas circuit court of Laurens county; Wallace, Judge.

Benet & McGowan and Haskell & Dial, for appellant.

H. Y. Simpson, for respondent.

McIver, J. This was an action to recover damages for an Injury sustained by plaintiff while traveling along an alleged public highway in Laurens county, leading from the town of Laurens to the town of Hamburg. It seems that the recognized public highway between those two points, after the construction of the Port Royal & W. C. Railroad, in 1884, passed under a trestle on said railroad, and that, the highway at that point becoming very rough, in the summer of 1886 a new road was cut out, at the suggestion of the neighbors, which left the public highway some 75 yards before reaching the trestle, and, passing under the trestle at a point some 25 or 30 yards below, again joined the public highway about 75 yards beyond the trestle; and that in passing under the trestle by this new road a very sharp turn had to be made, which seems to have been, in large part at least, the main cause of the accident complained of. There was no evidence that this new road was opened by any authority from the county commissioners, or that it was ever known to them. No special commissioners were appointed, as required by the act of 1883, which will hereinafter be referred to, and no notice given to the railroad company or to any one else that such new road was to be opened, or that such change was to be made in the recognized public highway. But the overseer of the road-hands, at the instance of the neighbors, undertook to make this change in the public highway without any authority, so far as appears. It does appear, however, that in 1888, after the accident complained of had occurred, the public highway was changed by the authority of the board of county commissioners, which, it seems, avoided the difficulty of passing under the trestle. At the close of plaintiff's testimony defendant moved for a nonsuit upon the ground that there was no evidence that the road upon which the accident occurred was a highway. The motion was granted by his honor, Judge Wallace, and the plaintiff appealed upon the several grounds set out in the record.

Under the view which we take of this case it will not be necessary to consider in detail the several grounds of appeal. In as much as it is well settled, in this state at least, that a municipal...