Case Name: SCHOOL DISTRICT v. MARION COUNTY
Court: Supreme Court of South Carolina
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1920-07-26
Citations: 114 S.C. 382
Docket Number: 10489
Parties: SCHOOL DISTRICT v. MARION COUNTY.
Judges: Mr. Chief Justice Gary concurs.
Reporter: South Carolina Reports
Volume: 114
Pages: 382–387

Head Matter:
10489
SCHOOL DISTRICT v. MARION COUNTY.
(103 S. E. 767.)
1. Pleading — Demurrer Admits Averments. — A demurrer admits the averments of the pleading attacked.
2. Highways — Complaint for Destruction of Shade Trees Held to State a Cause of Action for Negligent Repair. — A complaint by a school district, whose shade trees were destroyed by the servants of a county in repairing a road, held not to state a cause of action for tort, but a cause of action, under Civ. Code 1912, sec. 1972, for the negligent repair of a highway; the employees of the county, in cutting the trees, acting within the scope of their employment, and making it liable for any negligent act. ’
Before Mauldin, J., Marion, ■-•.
Reversed.
Action by School District No. 19, of Marion County, against the County of Marion, for damage to shade trees in repairing a public road. Defendant demurred to the complaint, and, upon such demurrer being sustained, the plaintiff appeals.
Mr. J. W. Johnson, for appellant,
cites: Por purpose of demurrer, facts as alleged are admitted: 111 S. C. 7. And a complaint attacked by way of demurrer must be liberally construed: 110 S. C. 534; act 1874 (Gen. Stat. 1087), construed; 20 S. C. 495; 38 S. C. 382; 40 S. C. 390; act 1874 amended in 1892 and 1901, and as amended now appears as sec. 1972, 1 Civil Code 1912. Remedial statute and should be given liberal construction: 59 S. C. 577. Construction of statute has broadened its remedial scope: 71 S. C. 170; 76 S. C. 202; 95 S. C. 187; 83 S. C. 506. Liability of cities fixed by sec. 3033, 1 Civil Code. Difference between liability of city and county marked: 94 S. C. 375.
Mr. M. C. Woods, for respondent,
cites: Act complained of was outside limits of highway and outside of scope of agency of laborers, and county not liable: 80 S. C. 32.
July 26, 1920.

Opinion:
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Justice Watts.
This is an action for damages alleged to have been committed by respondent while repairing a public road, by negligently cutting and destroying shade trees of appellant. Respondent demurred to the complaint, on the ground that it did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. His Honor, Judge Mauldin, sustained the demurrer and dismissed the complaint.
Plaintiff appealed, and by two exceptions, which are: "First. In sustaining the respondent's demurrer, thus holding that the action was an action for tort; whereas, he should have held that the action was for actual damages suffered by appellant by the negligent conduct of respondent in repairing a public highway.
"Second. In not holding that the complaint stated'a cause of action under section 1972 of volume I of Code for damages suffered by appellant, occasioned by respondent in the negligent repair of a public highway."
The exceptions are sustained; the complaint states a good cause of action. The demurrer admits the allegations thereof. There is no doubt that the hands, employed by the county in repairing the road, were under the control of the county, acting within the scope of their employment-For any negligent act on their part in building or making repairs on the highway, by which a party is injured, the}must respond in actual damages.
In the present case demurrer admits damage was inflicted in the negligent repair of the highway. Order appealed from is reversed.
Reversed.
Mr. Chief Justice Gary concurs.