Graham v. Town of Latta
417 S.C. 164
| S.C. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Claude and Vickie Graham sued the Town of Latta after repeated municipal sewer overflows in September 2008 flooded their property, caused health problems, and left sewage under their house and in crawl spaces.
- The Grahams asserted negligence (both), and Vickie asserted inverse condemnation and trespass; they sought damages to real and personal property and medical costs.
- Trial evidence included: DHEC testimony about infiltration/inflow and cleanup recommendations; engineering testimony about aged sewer pipes, evidence of sewage bubbling at manholes, and an attempted but obstructed camera inspection; the Town’s smoke testing and GIS-based mapping; contractor estimate to rebuild the house; and medical testimony linking symptoms to conditions at the house.
- The trial court directed a verdict for the Town on Vickie Graham’s inverse condemnation and trespass claims and on claims tied to events of Sept. 5–6, 2008, but submitted negligence claims to the jury.
- Jury awarded Vickie $225,000 and Claude $100,000; the Town’s post-trial motions (JNOV/new trial) were denied. The Town appealed; the Grahams cross-appealed the directed verdicts and the court’s prescriptive easement ruling.
- The South Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed the circuit court in all respects.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Discretionary-immunity under SC Tort Claims Act | Grahams: Town failed to exercise or document professional judgment; acted negligently in maintenance/repair decisions. | Town: sewer design/maintenance are discretionary governmental functions entitling it to immunity. | Court: Denied immunity — evidence supported inference Town did not weigh alternatives or follow accepted professional standards before "doing nothing." |
| Res ipsa / proximate cause | Grahams: circumstantial evidence showed Town’s sewer line leak caused damage and illness. | Town: SC does not recognize res ipsa; insufficient proof of causation. | Court: Res ipsa not required; circumstantial and direct evidence (DHEC, engineers, Town’s inability to locate/inspect line) sufficed for jury on causation. |
| Damages to real property (replacement cost) | Grahams: house effectively uninhabitable; contractor estimate to rebuild relevant measure of damages. | Town: no proof house was a total loss; replacement-cost testimony speculative — requires new trial. | Court: Affirmed — evidence (mold testing, medical testimony, unrepaired sewer under house) supported submission to jury; verdict not excessive. |
| Inverse condemnation & Trespass | Grahams: Town’s ongoing use/continuing sewage on property amounted to a taking/trespass. | Town: acts were omissions or nonintentional; inverse condemnation/trespass require affirmative, intentional government acts. | Court: Directed verdict for Town — plaintiffs failed to prove an affirmative, positive, intentional governmental act causing a taking or trespass. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pike v. S.C. Dep’t of Transp., 343 S.C. 224, 540 S.E.2d 87 (S.C. 2000) (governmental entity must show employees weighed competing considerations and used accepted professional standards to invoke discretionary immunity)
- Hawkins v. City of Greenville, 358 S.C. 280, 594 S.E.2d 557 (Ct. App. 2004) (design/maintenance of drainage systems involve discretionary functions; failure to act does not constitute inverse condemnation)
- Crider v. Infinger Transp. Co., 248 S.C. 10, 148 S.E.2d 732 (1966) (South Carolina does not recognize res ipsa loquitur as a substitute for proof of actionable negligence)
- Snow v. City of Columbia, 305 S.C. 544, 409 S.E.2d 797 (Ct. App. 1991) (trespass will not lie for nonfeasance; intentional entry required)
- Carolina Chloride, Inc. v. S.C. Dep’t of Transp., 391 S.C. 429, 706 S.E.2d 501 (2011) (elements of inverse condemnation require affirmative conduct by government causing a taking)
- Rolandi v. City of Spartanburg, 294 S.C. 161, 363 S.E.2d 385 (Ct. App. 1987) (rejecting inverse condemnation where damage resulted from no affirmative governmental act)