Jeff Hunt Machinery Co. v. South Carolina State Highway Dept., 16396

• Citation: 60 S.E.2d 859,217 S.C. 423
• Decision Date: 09 August 1950
• Docket Number: No. 16396,16396
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
• Parties: JEFF HUNT MACHINERY CO. v. SOUTH CAROLINA STATE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT.

Page 859

60 S.E.2d 859 217 S.C. 423 JEFF HUNT MACHINERY CO.
v.
SOUTH CAROLINA STATE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT. No. 16396. Supreme Court of South Carolina. Aug. 9, 1950.

[217 S.C. 424] John M. Daniel, Atty. Gen., T. C. Callison, R. Hoke Robinson, Asst. Attys. Gen., Sinkler, Gibbs & Simons, Charleston, for appellant.

Smythe & Smythe, Charleston, for respondent.

[217 S.C. 425] OXNER, Justice.

This case is here on the pleadings. The questions involved are:

(1) May a person whose property has been damaged by reason of a defect in a State highway but who has been fully reimbursed for such loss under a policy of insurance, maintain an action against the State Highway Department for the amount of such damage under Section 5887 of the 1942 Code of Laws for South Carolina?

(2) Is the ferry which crosses the Inland Waterway at a point south of Georgetown,

Page 860

known as South Island Ferry, part of a State highway within the contemplation of the section of the Code above mentioned?

Respondent, Jeff Hunt Machinery Company, alleged in its complaint that on or about December 29, 1948, while undertaking to transport a Caterpillar Diesel Electric Set owned by it across the Inland Waterway by using South Island Ferry, which was operated by the South Carolina Highway Department as a part of Highway No. 716, said machinery, along with the tractor and trailer used in hauling it, was submerged in the surrounding waters on account of defects in the ferry, causing considerable damage to the generator set. Judgment was sought in the sum of $1,500. The State Highway Department, after denying all allegations of negligence and alleging negligence on the part of the driver of the truck, interposed the following defenses: (1) That respondent was not the real party in interest because it had been fully compensated for its loss by an insurance company for whose benefit the action was brought; that an action of this kind can only be brought by the person whose property[217 S.C. 426] was damaged by a defect in the highway; and that respondent was seeking to evade the statute waiving the immunity of the State from suit in certain cases by bringing the suit in its name when in fact the action was prosecuted for the benefit of the insurance company which had paid the loss. (2) That the State has not given its consent to be sued for damages occurring on a ferry such as the one described in the complaint.

The Court below granted a motion by respondent to strike the frst defense above mentioned, questioning the right of respondent to maintain this action, on the ground that the allegations relating thereto were incompetent, immaterial and irrelevant, and sustained a demurrer interposed by respondent to each of the above defenses on the ground that the facts alleged therein were insufficient to constitute a defense. The State Highway Department has appealed from this order.

We shall first inquire whether respondent is precluded from maintaining this action on account of the fact that it has been compensated for the loss by its insurer. The portion of Section 5887(1) of the 1942 Code pertinent to this controversy is as follows: 'Any person, firm or corporation who may suffer injury to his or her person or damage to his, her or its property...