Robinson v. South Carolina State Highway Dept.
| Decision Date | 12 September 1962 |
| Docket Number | No. 17964,17964 |
| Citation | 127 S.E.2d 286,241 S.C. 137 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | Redic E. ROBINSON, Sr., Redic E. Robinson, Jr. and Robert W. Robinson, Respondents, v. SOUTH CAROLINA STATE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT, Appellant. |
Daniel R. McLeod, Atty. Gen., J., McNary Spigner, Asst. Atty. Gen., Fulmer, Barnes & Verner, Columbia, for appellant.
Monteith & Monteith, Columbia, for respondents.
This is an appeal from an Order of the Honorable John Grimball, Judge of the Fifth Judicial Circuit, in which defendant's motion to bring in the Town of Forest Acres as a party defendant in order to file a cross-complaint against said Town was refused.
Plaintiffs are the owners of approximately twenty and one-half acres of land on the south side of Forest Drive, a South Carolina State Highway in the Town of Forest Acres which is adjacent to the City of Columbia. Plaintiffs allege that their land has been damaged as a result of changes made in the drainage system by the South Carolina State Highway Department along Forest Drive and adjacent streets. Said changes are alleged to be a taking of plaintiffs' property for public use without just compensation being paid therefor. This action was commenced between the parties on October 10, 1960. In July, 1961, defendant filed answer together with motion to strike certain allegations and to make more definite and certain. Plaintiffs moved for permission to amend their complaint in October, 1961. Defendant moved to bring in the Town of Forest Acres in November, 1961. Plaintiffs' motion was granted by the same Order which denied defendant's motions.
The questions raised by this appeal are: (1) Did the hearing Judge err in refusing defendant's motion to bring in Town of Forest Acres as a defendant in order that defendant might file a cross-action?; and (2) Did the hearing Judge err in permitting plaintiffs to amend their complaint without granting defendant permission to file answer to the amended complaint?
Section 33-174, Code of Laws of South Carolina, 1952, provides that 'The performance of work within a municipality by the (Highway) Department shall not result in the assumption by the Department of any liability whatever on account of damages to property, injuries to persons, or death growing out of or in any way connected with such work. * * *'
Section 33-173 further provides: 'In every case of a proposed permanent improvement, construction, reconstruction or alteration by the State Highway Department of any highway or highway facility within a municipality, the municipality may review and approve the plans thereof before the work is started and such approval by the municipality shall be understood to mean that the municipality thereby assumes all liability which the Department might otherwise have as a result of damage to property or persons resulting from such improvement, construction, reconstruction or alteration carried out in accordance with the plans approved by the municipality.'
In Moseley v. South Carolina Highway Department, 236 S.C. 499, 115 S.E.2d 172, this Court held that Sections 33-173 and 33-174, Code of Laws of South Carolina, 1952, did not relieve the South Carolina Highway Department from liability for the taking of private property for public use without just compensation in connection with the improvements by said Department on highways and streets located within a municipality.
In accordance with the foregoing, defendant entered into an agreement with the Town of Forest Acres in which said Town agreed to assume all liability which the State Highway Department might have as a result of damage to property or persons resulting from improvement, construction, reconstruction, or alteration of certain streets in said Town carried out in accordance with the plans which said Town had approved. Based upon the terms of this contract, defendant attempted to make the Town of Forest Acres an additional party defendant, pointing out that the only additional issues that the jury would be called upon to consider would be whether or not the work...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dorman v. DEPT. OF HEALTH AND ENV.
...to a controversy is left to the sound discretion of the Trial Judge subject to review by appeal." Robinson v. S.C. State Highway Dep't, 241 S.C. 137, 141, 127 S.E.2d 286, 287 (1962). Applications to bring in additional parties are ordinarily granted as a matter of course, especially where t......
-
Roddey v. Lyle
...law for interpretation of these statutes and their predecessors: Willimon v. City of Greenville, supra; Robinson v. S. C. State Highway Dept., 241 S.C. 137, 127 S.E.2d 286 (1962); Moseley v. S. C. Highway Dept., 236 S.C. 499, 115 S.E.2d 172 (1960); Dolan v. City of Camden, 233 S.C. 1, 103 S......
-
Reed v. Medlin, 0409
...an additional party is addressed to the discretion of the trial judge subject to review on appeal. Robinson v. South Carolina State Highway Dept., 241 S.C. 137, 127 S.E.2d 286 (1962). In this case, the circuit judge held the doctrine of sovereign immunity precluded suit against the Chief Hi......
-
Scott v. Carter
...The intervention of additional parties to an action is largely in the discretion of the Court. Robinson v. South Carolina Highway Department, 241 S.C. 137, 127 S.E.2d 286 (1962). I find that it is proper to allow the intervention and so rule. I further find that the intervenors are individu......