BAUGHMAN v. AMERICAN TEL. & TEL. CO.
5/13/1991
Inc. v. Schofield, 251 S.C. 385, 162 S.E.2d 705, [(1968)]
and cases therein cited.
The evidence as to the diminution of market value is, in
Id. 256 S.C. at 570-71, 183 S.E.2d at 444.
Plaintiffs' case suffers from a similar deficiency. Although many individual plaintiffs asserted in their answers to interrogatories and depositions that pollution from Nassau's plant had caused a diminution in the value of their property, these "bald allegations" are insufficient to create a genuine issue of fact. See Stevens v. Barnard, 512 F.2d 876, 879 (10th Cir. 1975). There is a total absence of any competent evidence showing either the existence or the amount of damage to property, or that any such damage was proximately caused by the acts of Nassau. Accordingly, we affirm trial court's grant of partial summary judgment on Plaintiffs' claims for property damage.
C. Nuisance Claims
Finally, Plaintiffs contend the trial court erred in granting Nassau's motion for partial summary judgment on the nuisance claims of Floyd and Edna Busbee, and O.J. and Jacqueline Shealy. They argue summary judgment was premature before completion of discovery. This argument comes too late.
Unlike with their
CONCLUSION
The grant of partial summary judgments on Plaintiffs' property damage claims and the four nuisance claims is affirmed. The partial summary judgments on all claims for
Affirmed in part; reversed in part and remanded.
HARWELL, Acting C.J., and FINNEY and TOAL, JJ., JAMES E. MOORE, Acting Associate J., concur.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 South Carolina Personal Injury Attorneys