Tollison v. Duke Power Co.

• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: LEWIS
• Citation: Tollison v. Duke Power Co., 220 S.E.2d 878, 265 S.C. 584 (S.C. 1975)
• Decision Date: 16 December 1975
• Docket Number: No. 20132,20132
• Parties: John TOLLISON, Respondent, v. DUKE POWER COMPANY, Appellant.

Page 878

220 S.E.2d 878

265 S.C. 584

John TOLLISON, Respondent, v. DUKE POWER COMPANY, Appellant.

No. 20132.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

Dec. 16, 1975.

Watkins, Vandiver, Kirven, Long & Gable, Anderson, for appellant.

Doyle & Palmer, Anderson, for respondent.

LEWIS, Chief Justice:

Respondent recovered judgment against appellant, Duke Power Company, for fire damage to a building, allegedly caused by appellant's negligent and willful failure to maintain a nearby fire hydrant in operable condition. Among other assignments of error, appellant contends that the trial judge should have granted its timely motion for a directed verdict because there was no evidence to sustain a causal connection between the failure of the hydrant to operate and the fire damage; and that the judgment rendered against it should be set aside. Since we sustain this ground of appeal, it is unnecessary to consider other charges of error.

Respondent installed a private water system to service the residents of a subdivision owned by him in Anderson County. He subsequently sold this water system to appellant and a part of the consideration consisted of the installation by appellant of a fire hydrant to provide fire protection to the subdivision. Later, a dispute arose between the parties concerning payment for water service to the fire hydrant and, upon respondent's refusal to pay the service charge, appellant cut off the supply of water to the hydrant.

On March 20, 1971, a fire occurred in a building owned by respondent. This building was located just outside of the subdivision, about five hundred (500) feet from the dry hydrant. Three volunteer fire departments arrived to fight the fire utilizing several trucks and numerous firemen. They succeeded in controlling the blaze but only after the building was damaged in the amount of approximately $18,000.00.

When the fire fighting units arrived, they began pumping water on the fire from the supply carried by them to the scene in tankers. Shortly thereafter an unsuccessful attempt was made by one of the crews to obtain water from the dry hydrant. A connection was them made to another hydrant several hundred feet further away.

Respondent contended that the failure to obtain a water supply from the inoperable hydrant, necessitating loss of time in connecting to a hydrant further away from the building, allowed the fire to increase in intensity and spread, causing a greater loss to his property. He concedes that the...