Vaughan v. Town of Lyman

• Decision Date: 25 September 2006
• Docket Number: No. 26210.,26210.
• Citation: 370 S.C. 436,635 S.E.2d 631
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: Judy VAUGHAN, Appellant, v. TOWN OF LYMAN, Respondent.

370 S.C. 436

635 S.E.2d 631

Judy VAUGHAN, Appellant, v. TOWN OF LYMAN, Respondent.

No. 26210.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

Heard April 18, 2006.

Decided September 25, 2006.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Matthew W. Christian, of Christian, Moorehead & Davis, of Greenville, for appellant.

William McBee Smith, of Smith & Haskell Law Firm, of Spartanburg, for respondent.

Chief Justice TOAL.

Judy Vaughan (Vaughan) brought an action against the Town of Lyman (Lyman) alleging it was negligent in failing to maintain the sidewalks located within its jurisdiction causing her injury. Lyman made a motion for summary judgment, which the trial court granted. Vaughan appealed the trial court's order. This Court certified the appeal for review from the court of appeals pursuant to Rule 204(b), SCACR. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for trial.

FACTUAL/PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In October of 1999 Vaughan tripped on the Lawrence Street sidewalk in Lyman, which had become broken over time by overgrown tree roots. As a result of the fall, Vaughan injured her hands, right knee, back, and spine. In November of 1999, Vaughan filed a claim against Lyman. Vaughan filed this suit in September of 2002.

Lyman argues that it is not responsible for Vaughan's injuries because it does not own, control, or maintain the sidewalk where the injury occurred. Lyman made a motion for summary judgment and the trial court granted Lyman's motion. Vaughan appealed and raises the following issues for this Court's review:

I. Did the lower court err in finding that S.C.Code Ann. § 5-27-120 (1976) did not create a duty for Lyman to keep the sidewalks within the town in good repair?

II. Did the lower court err in finding that no common law duty exists for Lyman to maintain the sidewalk?

III. Did the lower court err in finding that Lyman did not owe a duty to Vaughan based on Lyman's voluntary undertaking of the repair and maintenance of the streets and sidewalks within the town?

IV. Did the lower court err in excluding certain material from the record on appeal?

STANDARD OF REVIEW

In reviewing the grant of summary judgment, this Court applies the same standard that governs the trial court under Rule 56, SCRCP: summary judgment is proper when there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. South Carolina Elec. & Gas Co. v. Town of Awendaw, 359 S.C. 29, 34, 596 S.E.2d 482, 485 (2004) (quoting Osborne v. Adams, 346 S.C. 4, 7, 550 S.E.2d 319, 321 (2001)). On appeal, all ambiguities, conclusions, and inferences arising in and from the evidence must be viewed in a light most favorable to the non-moving party. Id.

LAW/ANALYSIS

I. Statutory duty

Vaughan argues the trial court erred in finding that S.C.Code Ann. § 5-27-120¹ did not create a duty for Lyman to keep the sidewalks within the town in good repair. We disagree.

Generally, the common law does not impose any duty to act. Miller v. City of Camden, 329 S.C. 310, 314, 494 S.E.2d 813, 815 (1997). However, an affirmative duty to act may be created by statute, contract, status, property interest, or some other special circumstance. Jensen v. Anderson County Dep't of Soc. Serv., 304 S.C. 195, 199, 403 S.E.2d 615, 617 (1991).

Although a statute may impose a duty to act upon a public official, the official may also be immune from a private right of action under the public duty rule. "This rule holds that public officials are generally not liable to individuals for their negligence in discharging public duties as the duty is owed to the public at large rather than anyone individually." Steinke v. South Carolina Dep't of Labor, Licensing, and Regulation, 336 S.C. 373, 388, 520 S.E.2d 142, 149 (1999).

The public duty rule's general principle of non-liability, however, is not absolute. Under the well established "special duty" exception, a public official may be held liable to an individual for the breach of a statutory duty when:

(1) an essential purpose of the statute is to protect against a particular kind of harm;

(2) the statute, either directly or indirectly, imposes on a specific public officer a duty to guard against or not cause that harm;

(3) the class of persons the statute intends to protect is identifiable before the fact;

(4) the plaintiff is a person within the protected class (5) the public officer knows or has reason to know the likelihood of harm to members of the class if he fails to do his duty; and

(6) the officer is given sufficient authority to act in the circumstances or he undertakes to act in the exercise of his office.

Jensen, 304 S.C. at 200, 403 S.E.2d at 617.

The public duty rule is a rule of statutory construction which aids the court in determining whether the legislature intended to create a private right of action for a statute's breach. Arthurs ex rel. Estate of Munn v. Aiken County, 346 S.C. 97, 104, 551 S.E.2d 579, 582 (2001). It is a negative defense which denies the existence of a duty of care owed to the individual. Id. The public duty rule should not be confused with the affirmative defense of immunity. Id. Therefore, the dispositive issue is not whether § 27-5-120 creates a duty, but rather whether the statute was intended to provide an individual a private right of action thereunder.

Our Court has long recognized that a municipality has a duty to maintain its streets. Morris v. Mills, 121 S.C. 200, 113 S.E. 632, 634 (1922). However, prior to the abolition of sovereign immunity, the liability of a municipality for the breach of the duty was grounded in a waiver statute. See S.C.Code Ann. § 5-7-70 (1976) repealed by Act No. 463, 1986 S.C. Acts 3001; S.C.Code Ann. § 47-36 (1962); S.C.Code Ann. § 7345 (1942); S.C.Code Ann. § 1972 (1912); 21 St. at Large 91 (1892 Act. No. 40). This waiver statute created the private right of action under which an individual could pursue a tort claim against a municipality for breach of the duty. The waiver statute served as a companion statute to the previous versions of § 27-5-120. After this Court abolished sovereign immunity, the legislature repealed the waiver statute and enacted the South Carolina Tort Claims Act. Act No. 463, 1986 S.C. Acts 3001. This Court continues to acknowledge the duty of a municipality to maintain its streets; however, we no longer observe the statutory basis for a private right of action. Instead, liability is now imposed through the waiver provisions of the Tort Claims Act. See S.C.Code Ann. 15-78-10, et seq. (2005).

In the instant case, Vaughan argues that the town of Lyman owes a "special duty" under § 27-5-120. The terms of the statute clearly define a duty owed to the general public. However, Vaughan has failed to demonstrate that the statute meets the requirements of a "special duty" as outlined above. We find that the statute does not have an identifiable class of persons intended to be protected by the statute beyond the classification of the general public. The intention of the statute to protect the general public is insufficient to amount to an "identifiable class" as required to find a "special duty."

Therefore, we hold that while § 27-5-120 clearly defines the duty to the general public of a municipality to maintain its streets, the public duty rule precludes a private right of action based solely on this statute. Accordingly, the lower court did not err in granting summary judgment to Lyman on the statutory cause of action because § 27-5-120 does not create a "special duty" upon which an individual may base a tort action against a municipality.

II. Common Law Duty

Vaughan argues the trial court erred in finding that no common law duty existed for Lyman to maintain the sidewalk on Lawrence Street. We agree.

Generally, the common law does not impose any duty to act. Miller, 329 S.C. at 314, 494 S.E.2d at 815. However, this Court has acknowledged that "the general rule in this country is that municipalities which have full and complete control over the streets and highways within their corporate limits are liable in damages for injuries sustained in consequence of their failure to use reasonable care to keep them in a reasonably safe condition for public travel." Terrell v. City of Orangeburg, 176 S.C. 518, 518-19, 180 S.E. 670, 672 (1935) (emphasis added) overruled on other grounds by McCall v. Batson, 285 S.C. 243, 329 S.E.2d 741 (1985) (abrogating sovereign immunity). Additionally, this Court has interpreted this duty to extend, not only to those streets, ways, and bridges owned and maintained by the municipality, but also to those under the control of the municipality.² Dolan, 233 S.C. at 4, 103 S.E.2d at 330; Terrell, 176 S.C. at 519, 180 S.E. at 672.

The lower court found that Lyman did not owe a duty to Vaughan because Lyman did not own, maintain, or control the sidewalk where the incident occurred. The court based its conclusion on the affidavit of Robert Fogel and exhibits submitted by Lyman with its motion for summary judgment. The affidavit explains that Lawrence Street is owned by Spartanburg County and that the State Highway Department maintains the street. The exhibits include deeds showing the transfer of Lawrence Street to Spartanburg County, as well as photographs of the signs on Lawrence Street indicating its designation as part of the State Highway System.

In opposition to Lyman's motion, Vaughan relied on the deposition testimony of Robert Fogel, Lynda Hurteau, and Robert Phillips to show that Lyman exercised at least some control over Lawrence Street. Vaughan asserts that Lyman assumed general maintenance of the streets and sidewalks by removing trees and filling potholes. Vaughan also alleges that Lyman exercised control over the streets by fielding citizen complaints about the streets and sidewalks. Additionally, Vaughan asserts that the town minutes contain several references to affirmative actions by Lyman to correct the problems related to the...