Watford v. South Carolina Highway Dept., 21015

Citation257 S.E.2d 229,273 S.C. 463
Decision Date30 July 1979
Docket NumberNo. 21015,21015
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
PartiesGene Thomas WATFORD, Appellant, v. SOUTH CAROLINA HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT, Respondent.

Robert L. Kilgo, Darlington, for appellant.

Atty. Gen. Daniel R. McLeod and Senior Asst. Atty. Gen. John P. Wilson, Columbia, and Paul A. Sansbury, Darlington, for respondent.

RHODES, Justice:

This is an action commenced by appellant to recover damages for loss of consortium and medical expenses resulting from his wife's involvement in an automobile collision with a State owned patrol car. The lower court sustained respondent's demurrer and dismissed the action, concluding that the husband's suit was not authorized by statute. We agree and affirm.

The parties agree that the single issue presented is whether the South Carolina Governmental Motor Vehicle Tort Claims Act (Tort Claims Act) provides for recovery against the State by a husband for medical expenses and loss of consortium arising from physical injuries sustained by his wife.

Basically, the Tort Claims Act, § 15-77-210, Et seq., S.C. Code of Laws (1976) allows "(a)ny person sustaining an injury" to sue the State for damages arising out of the negligent operation of State owned vehicles while engaged in State business. See § 15-77-230. "Injury" is defined in the Tort Claims Act as:

. . . death, injury to a person, damage to or loss of property, or any other injury or loss that a person may suffer To his person or property, that would be actionable at law if inflicted by or through the fault of a private person or his agent; § 15-77-220(5). S.C. Code of Laws (1976) (emphasis added).

The lower court correctly concluded that the phrase "to his person or property" restricted recovery to direct personal injuries and property damage sustained by the wife and did not allow for the damages now sought by the husband.

This interpretation is supported by case law construing a similar statute. In Brazell v. City of Camden, 238 S.C. 580, 121 S.E.2d 221 (1961), it was held that an uninjured husband's action for loss of consortium and wife's medical expenses could not be maintained under § 47-70, S.C. Code of Laws (1952) (currently § 5-7-70, S.C. Code of Laws (1976)) which authorized a municipality to be sued by "(a)ny person who shall receive bodily injury or damages In his person or property through a defect in any street . . ." (emphasis added). The court reasoned that:

Plaintiff, Brazell, sustained no fall and he received no injury or damage unless the wife's medical bills and his loss of consortium are to be considered as property. The husband's duty relative to support of his wife and, in turn, such rights as exist relative to him as a husband are created with respect to the marital relationship of the parties and not by statute waiving the immunity of the sovereign. Id. at 583, 121 S.E.2d at 222.

The same issue and result were involved in Hollifield v. Keller, 238 S.C. 584, 121 S.E.2d 213 (1961), the court there concluding that the statute provided relief only for direct injury to the person or property:

Section 47-70 of the Code does not, in specific language, authorize an action against a municipality for the loss of consortium. We cannot, by interpretation, expand or enlarge the provisions of the said statute. To hold otherwise would have the effect of broadening the permissory statute by judicial decree and bring about that which the Legislature has within its prerogative not done. Id. at 598, 121 S.E.2d at 220.

Appellant urges that the Tort Claims Act is broader than the "defect" legislation above discussed, authorizes suits not previously allowable, and was intended to allow an individual the same recovery against the State as would be available against a private person.

The South Carolina Constitution provides that "(t)he General Assembly may direct, by law, in what manner claims against the State may be established and adjusted." S.C.Const., Art. XVII, § 2. And, because such statutes are in derogation of sovereign immunity, it is universally held that recovery must be restricted to the precise circumstances mentioned in the statute:

We have consistently held that it is the duty of the court to construe the Acts waiving sovereign...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • McCall by Andrews v. Batson
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • October 16, 1984
    ...276 S.C. 401, 279 S.E.2d 378 (1981). 7. Belue v. City of Spartanburg, 276 S.C. 381, 280 S.E.2d 49 (1981). 8. Watford v. S.C. Highway Dep't, 273 S.C. 463, 257 S.E.2d 229 (1979). 9. Teague v. Cherokee Cty. Memorial Hospital, 272 S.C. 403, 252 S.E.2d 296 (1979). 10. Lyon v. City of Sumter, 272......
  • Belue v. City of Spartanburg
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • June 1, 1981
    ...Douglass v. Florence General Hospital, 273 S.C. 716, 259 S.E.2d 117 (1979); Watford v. S. C. Highway Dept., 273 S.C. 463, 257 S.E.2d 229 (1979); Teague v. Cherokee County Memorial Hospital, 272 S.C. 403, 252 S.E.2d 296 (1979); Lyon v. City of Sumter, 272 S.C. 359, 252 S.E.2d 118 (1979); Kin......
  • Endres v. Greenville Hosp. System
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • November 16, 1993
    ......No. 23967. Supreme Court of South Carolina. Heard Nov. 16, 1993. Decided Dec. 13, ... We disagree. Hospital cites Watford v. South Carolina Highway Dept., 273 S.C. 463, ......
  • Gosnell v. Dorchester School Dist. No. 2, 23170
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • January 10, 1990
    ...specified exemptions from liability set out in the Act. S.C.Code Ann. § 15-78-40 (Supp.1989). Relying on Watford v. South Carolina Highway Dept., 273 S.C. 463, 257 S.E.2d 229 (1979), the trial judge concluded appellant could recover under the Tort Claims Act only for economic loss and not f......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT