Stanley v. South Carolina State Highway Dept., 18621
| Citation | 249 S.C. 230,153 S.E.2d 687 |
| Decision Date | 16 March 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 18621,18621 |
| Parties | G. F. STANLEY and John Stanley, by his Guardian ad Litem, G. F. Stanley, Appellants, v. SOUTH CAROLINA STATE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT, Respondent. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina |
Holland Smith, Hampton, for appellants.
Atty. Gen. Daniel R. McLeod, Asst. Atty. Gen. C. T. Goolsby, Jr., Columbia, for respondent.
This action was brought against the State Highway Department to recover damages sustained in an intersectional automobile collision which allegedly resulted from the obstruction of plaintiff's view at the intersection by underbrush which the Highway Department permitted to grow on the untraveled portion of its right of way. The sufficiency of the complaint to state a cause of action against the Highway Department, based upon such obstruction of view, was challenged by demurrer which the lower court sustained, and plaintiff has appealed.
The basic question for decision is whether the complaint alleges a cause of action against the State Highway Department for damages growing out of an accident at a highway intersection on the ground that it failed to cut underbrush which obstructed the view at the intersection.
The complaint alleges that on July 3, 1964 the plaintiff was driving his father's automobile west on an unimproved county road that intersects State Highway No. 363 near Hampton, South Carolina; and, after stopping at a stop sign located on the county road, drove into the intersection where he collided with another automobile that was proceeding in a northerly direction on Highway 363, sustaining the injury and damage for which recovery is sought. It is further alleged that the Highway Department permitted thick underbrush to grow on its right of way at the intersection so as to obstruct the view of travelers using the intersection and thereby created an inherently dangerous situation.
Liability of the Highway Department is based upon allegations that the collision and resulting damage to plaintiff was proximately caused by the negligence of the department (1) in failing to adequately warn users of the highway of the alleged inherently dangerous situation at the intersection and (2) in allowing thick underbrush to grow on its right of way so as to prevent travelers using the intersection from adequately observing oncoming traffic.
This action is brought under the provisions of Section 33--229 of the 1962 Code of Laws, which grants permission to sue the State Highway Department, a branch of the State government, and sets forth the basis of its liability. This section is as follows:
'Any person who may suffer injury to his person or damage to his property by reason of (a) a defect in any State highway, (b) the negligent repair of any State highway or (c) the negligent operation of any vehicle or motor vehicle in charge of the State Highway Department while such vehicle or motor vehicle is actually engaged in the construction or repair of any such highways or while otherwise being operated on official business of the Department may bring suit against the Department for the actual amount of such injury or damage, not to exceed * * *.'
There are no allegations that plaintiff's damage resulted from the negligent repair of any State highway or the negligent operation of any vehicle in change of the Highway Department, so our inquiry is confined to a determination of whether, under the present complaint, the failure of the Department to cut the underbrush obstructing the view at the intersection constituted a defect in the highway within the meaning of the foregoing statute.
Since the statute waives the State's immunity from tort liability in the designated instances, it must be strictly construed. Fann v. State Highway Department, 167 S.C. 84, 165 S.E. 785.
The statute does not define a defect in the highway and it is difficult to formulate a rule that may be...
To continue reading
Request your trial