Chakrabarti v. City of Orangeburg
403 S.C. 308
| S.C. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Chakrabartis purchased a fire-damaged house in Orangeburg, SC in 2003 and the city condemned it as a nuisance under the IPMC, then demolished it in August 2005.
- Chakrabartis filed suit July 2007 asserting negligence in condemnation and demolition, plus inverse condemnation, wrongful condemnation, and trespass; the act of trespass was later withdrawn during trial.
- Trial occurred October 5–7, 2011; inverse condemnation was bench-tried, while other causes and damages were decided by a jury.
- The trial court denied Orangeburg’s directed verdict motions and held there was a compensable taking; the jury awarded $165,000 for gross negligence and $85,000 for just compensation (inverse condemnation).
- On post-trial motions, the court denied relief; Orangeburg appealed; the Chakrabartis elected to pursue the gross-negligence award and preserve rights on inverse condemnation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gross negligence duty and breach | Chakrabarti claims city violated IPMC procedures and breached duty by improper demolition. | Orangeburg asserts no breach; proper procedure followed under IPMC and public-duty immunity | Denial of directed verdict/JNOV upheld; evidence supports gross-negligence finding |
| Sovereign immunity and exceptions | Act waivers apply if gross negligence occurred under licensing/administrative actions. | Immunity should bar claim absent gross negligence; exceptions apply only if gross negligence shown. | Court held gross-negligence exception read into applicable immunity provisions; JNOV/ verdict affirmed on this point |
| Waiver and estoppel preservation | Waiver/estoppel defenses should bar recovery due to failure to appeal. | Waiver/estoppel defeat liability if not preserved in trial court. | Issue not preserved for review; waived because not raised/ruled on in trial court |
| Inverse condemnation | Demolition constitutes a taking requiring just compensation. | Demolition was not inverse condemnation; proper remedy under IPMC and immunity. | Court reversed the inverse condemnation judgment and damages; no just compensation awarded |
| Damages distinctness across theories | Damages for gross negligence should cover all proximately caused losses to restore pre-injury position. | Two damages awards improper since inverse condemnation abandoned; limit to gross negligence damages. | Affirmed $165,000 gross-negligence damages; reversed inverse-condemnation damages |
Key Cases Cited
- Summers v. Harrison Constr., 298 S.C. 451 (Ct. App. 1989) (negligence elements; duty and breach required)
- Steinke v. S.C. Dep’t of Labor, Licensing & Regulation, 336 S.C. 373 (Ct. App. 1999) (gross-negligence standard read into exceptions)
- Curcio v. Caterpillar, Inc., 355 S.C. 316 (2003) (JNOV standard; weight of evidence cannot defeat if any evidence supports verdict)
- Etheredge v. Richland Sch. Dist. One, 341 S.C. 307 (2000) (gross negligence defined; absence of care under circumstances)
- Austin v. Specialty Transp. Servs., Inc., 358 S.C. 298 (Ct. App. 2004) (proper measure of actual damages; compensate losses proximately caused)
- Hutson v. Cummins Carolinas, Inc., 280 S.C. 552 (Ct. App. 1984) (evidence-based damages review; not required to prove with certainty)
- Scoggins v. McClellion, 321 S.C. 264 (Ct. App. 1996) (preservation of issues; directed verdict context)
- In re McCracken, 346 S.C. 87 (Ct. App. 2001) (preservation and review principles; issues raised before trial court)
- Staubes v. City of Folly Beach, 339 S.C. 406 (Ct. App. 2000) (issues not raised below not reviewable on appeal)