Ray v. City of Rock Hill, 862 S.E.2d 259

Background

Ray purchased a 1920s house in 1985 built over a preexisting 24-inch terra cotta pipe (the Pipe) that runs under and behind her property at the low point of a 29-acre watershed.
Three City-owned stormwater pipes collect runoff and discharge into a catch basin on College Avenue that connects to the Pipe; that system has routed water through the Pipe for roughly a century.
Ray observed settlement and sinkhole events over the years and learned in 2008 from City employees that the Pipe ran from College Avenue toward her porch; she later sued the City on November 6, 2012 alleging inverse condemnation and trespass.
During a contemporaneous City sewer project the City severed all three stormwater pipes feeding the catch basin, stopping flow through the Pipe; after Ray filed suit and her counsel demanded the City not reconnect, the City reconnected the pipes and flow resumed.
The circuit court granted summary judgment to the City on inverse condemnation (dismissing that claim); the court of appeals reversed, finding a triable issue whether the reconnection was an affirmative, positive, aggressive act; the Supreme Court affirmed as modified and remanded.
The Court held Ray’s recovery is limited by the three-year statute of limitations: pre‑2012 damage is time‑barred (Ray learned of the problem in 2008), so only damage attributable to the City’s November 2012 reconnection remains at issue.

Issues

Issue	Ray's Argument	City’s Argument	Held
Whether reconnecting the stormwater pipes after suit was an "affirmative, positive, aggressive act" sufficient for inverse condemnation	Reconnection was an affirmative, directed act that restarted harmful water flow and thus is a taking	Reconnection was maintenance or merely a refusal to follow Ray’s demand — a failure to act, not an affirmative act	Reconnection can be an affirmative act; Court found a genuine issue of material fact and reversed summary judgment on that basis
Whether Ray presented evidence that the reconnection caused new or additional damage (causation/quantum)	Structural engineer’s supplemental report predicted increased flow and risk of additional structural damage after reconnection	No evidence the November 2012 reconnection caused distinct, additional damage	Engineer’s report raises a triable issue of fact; remand for determination on actual damages caused by reconnection
Effect of statute of limitations on recovery	Claim limited to damages from the 2012 reconnection, so timely	Plaintiff discovered the problem by 2008; claims for earlier damage are time‑barred	Damages occurring more than three years before the 2012 filing are barred; Ray may recover only for damage caused by the November 2012 reconnection
Does absence of evidence that City installed the Pipe preclude liability	City has nonetheless been directing stormwater into the Pipe for decades, creating responsibility for reconnection act	City argues it did not install the Pipe and original taking (if any) occurred long ago	Installation origin is irrelevant to the reconnection question; liability turns on City’s act of directing water into the Pipe and resulting damage

Key Cases Cited

Hawkins v. City of Greenville, 358 S.C. 280, 594 S.E.2d 557 (Ct. App. 2004) (analyzes affirmative‑act requirement for inverse condemnation)
WRB Ltd. P’ship v. Cty. of Lexington, 369 S.C. 30, 630 S.E.2d 479 (2006) (plaintiff must prove a government’s affirmative, aggressive, positive act caused damage)
Marietta Garage, Inc. v. S.C. Dep’t of Pub. Safety, 352 S.C. 95, 572 S.E.2d 306 (Ct. App. 2002) (elements of inverse condemnation)
Gray v. S.C. Dep’t of Highways & Pub. Transp., 311 S.C. 144, 427 S.E.2d 899 (Ct. App. 1992) (inverse condemnation elements; permanence/public‑use considerations)
Lanham v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of S.C., Inc., 349 S.C. 356, 563 S.E.2d 331 (2002) (standard of review for summary judgment)
Dean v. Ruscon Corp., 321 S.C. 360, 468 S.E.2d 645 (1996) (discovery rule for statute of limitations)