South Carolina Lawyers Weekly staff//May 7, 2013//
South Carolina Lawyers Weekly staff//May 7, 2013//
Chakrabarti v. City of Orangeburg (Lawyers Weekly No. 011-064-13, 11 pp.) (Paul E. Short Jr., J.) Appealed from Orangeburg County Circuit Court (Edgar W. Dickson, J.) S.C. App.
Holding: Viewed in the light most favorable to plaintiffs, the record shows the defendant-city issued a building permit to plaintiffs six months before demolishing their house, and the city produced no evidence of a date when substantial construction on the property had ceased for any significant period, much less for the two years required by the city’s building maintenance code. Further, evidence was presented that plaintiffs’ contractor was doing work on the house until the city demolished it. Therefore, evidence was presented that the city did not follow the proper procedure in demolishing plaintiffs’ house.
We affirm the trial court’s denial of the city’s post-trial motions. We reverse the trial court’s conclusion that the demolition amounted to inverse condemnation requiring payment of just compensation.
The city asserts it is immune to liability under S.C. Code Ann. § 15-78-60(2), (4), and (23) of the Tort Claims Act. We disagree.
None of these exceptions contains a gross negligence standard. Because we find the city may be liable if it was grossly negligent in its licensing per § 15-78(12), and the trial court properly denied the city’s motion for a directed verdict for gross negligence, we also find the court properly denied the city’s motions for directed verdict based on §§ 15-78-60(2), (4), and (23).
The city argues the trial court erred in concluding its demolition of plaintiffs’ house amounted to inverse condemnation requiring payment of just compensation. Plaintiffs concede this issue in their brief. Accordingly, we reverse the $85,000 judgment on the inverse condemnation cause of action.
Plaintiffs’ evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s $165,000 award for gross negligence.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part.