From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Brabham v. City of Columbia

Supreme Court of South Carolina
Aug 24, 1987
360 S.E.2d 144 (S.C. 1987)

Summary

indicating the doctrine of sovereign immunity had no application where an action against a governmental entity arose between April 18, 1985, and July 1, 1986, and the governmental entity sued in tort had liability insurance and indicating liability would be limited to the amount of insurance

Summary of this case from Brockington v. Pee Dee Mental Center

Opinion

22776

Heard May 6, 1987.

Decided August 24, 1987.

Thomas J. Hummel, Columbia, for appellant. Asst. City Atty. James S. Meggs, Columbia, for respondents.


Heard May 6, 1987.

Decided Aug. 24, 1987.


Appellant Randolph Thomas Brabham (Brabham) commenced this action against respondents City of Columbia (City) and Lawrence Ashford (Ashford) on July 2, 1986. Brabham was injured as a result of an automobile accident on May 2, 1985, involving his vehicle and a City vehicle operated by Ashford. Respondents' answer (1) admitted an accident occurred involving the parties' vehicles; (2) denied Ashford's negligence; (3) admitted Ashford was an employee acting within the scope of his employment at the time of the accident; and (4) set forth the defense of the South Carolina Tort Claims Act pursuant to § 15-78-20(c), Code of Laws of South Carolina 1976, as amended. Respondents filed a motion for summary judgment on the grounds of sovereign immunity asserting the South Carolina Tort Claims Act, § 15-78-20(c), and lack of liability insurance coverage. The trial court granted summary judgment and this appeal ensued. We affirm.

Appellant contends that under McCall v. Batson, 285 S.C. 243, 329 S.E.2d 741 (1985), he is entitled to maintain this action because the complaint was not filed until July 2, 1986. In McCall v. Batson, supra, issued April 18, 1985, this Court abolished the doctrine of sovereign immunity effective July 1, 1986. However, the Court permitted recovery from April 18, 1985, to July 1, 1986, to the extent of the sovereign's liability insurance coverage. On September 2, 1986, in an attempt to clarify McCall v. Batson, supra, this Court held in Moore v. Berkeley County, et al., 290 S.C. 43, 348 S.E.2d 174 (1986), that the date the incident occurred was determinative of the applicability of the McCall v. Batson decision governing sovereign immunity and recovery limitations and not the date on which the complaint is filed.

In accordance with our decision in McCall v. Batson, supra, and Moore v. Berkeley County, et al., supra, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Affirmed.

GREGORY and HARWELL, JJ., and BRUCE LITTLEJOHN, Acting Associate Justice, concur.

NESS, C.J., dissents.


I disagree with the majority, for the reasons set forth in my dissent in Taylor v. Murphy, et al., 293 S.C. 316, 360 S.E.2d 314 (1987). Appellant is entitled to pursue recovery under the South Carolina Governmental Motor Vehicle Tort Claims Act, S.C. Code Ann. Sections 15-7-210 through 250 (1976) (Repealed by 1986 Act No. 463, Section 2), since his cause of action accrued prior to July 1, 1986.


Summaries of

Brabham v. City of Columbia

Supreme Court of South Carolina
Aug 24, 1987
360 S.E.2d 144 (S.C. 1987)

indicating the doctrine of sovereign immunity had no application where an action against a governmental entity arose between April 18, 1985, and July 1, 1986, and the governmental entity sued in tort had liability insurance and indicating liability would be limited to the amount of insurance

Summary of this case from Brockington v. Pee Dee Mental Center
Case details for

Brabham v. City of Columbia

Case Details

Full title:Randolph Thomas BRABHAM, Appellant v. CITY OF COLUMBIA and Lawrence…

Court:Supreme Court of South Carolina

Date published: Aug 24, 1987

Citations

360 S.E.2d 144 (S.C. 1987)
360 S.E.2d 144

Citing Cases

Brockington v. Pee Dee Mental Center

We reverse. Early on in the law suit the parties stipulated that the Tort Claims Act did not apply to any…