 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Bundrick v. East Richland County Public Service Dist.3/31/2005
Submitted February 1, 2005
AFFIRMED
Don L. Bundrick and Ann R. Bundrick brought claims against East Richland County Public Service District for improper installation and maintenance of a sewer line and drainage ditch. The trial court found the statute of repose barred their claims. We affirm.
FACTS
The District obtained a right of way and easement to construct a sewer line on undeveloped property in 1972. The District contracted with two companies to install the line. The construction of the line on the Bundricks' future property was completed in October 1972, and construction on the entire line was completed by 1974. During 1972, the flow of a creek on the property was diverted through an aluminum pipe running perpendicular to the line, though the District denied it or its contractors installed the pipe.
The Bundricks purchased the property in 1984, and applied for sewer service from the District in 1986. The Bundricks built a house and moved onto the previously undeveloped land in October 1986. They soon began to experience trouble with soil erosion and noticed their house developed structural distress. They surmised the aluminum pipe running near the sewer line caused the difficulties. The Bundricks sued the District in February 2000.
At trial, the Bundricks asserted their problems were caused by the District's improper placement of the aluminum pipe near the sewer line. They further claimed the District failed to properly maintain the pipe.
The District presented evidence supporting its denial of ownership over the aluminum pipe. It also presented evidence establishing that neither the District nor its contractors installed the aluminum pipe. In its answer, the District asserted the statute of repose barred the Bundricks' claims and the trial court agreed.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
In an appeal from a master in equity, this court has the same scope of review as if the appeal was from a circuit court sitting without a jury. Tiger, Inc. v. Fisher Agro, Inc., 301 S.C. 229, 237, 391 S.E.2d 538, 543 (1990). A suit based on negligence is an action at law. Sims v. Hall, 357 S.C. 288, 592 S.E.2d 315 (Ct. App. 2003). Furthermore, while we may correct errors of law, we must affirm a master's factual findings unless they are without evidentiary support. Sims, 357 S.C. at 294-95, 592 S.E.2d at 318.
LAW/ANALYSIS
The Bundricks argue the master erred in finding their claims were barred by the statute of repose. We disagree.
A. Statute of Repose
The legislature codified a thirteen-year statute of repose in S.C. Code Ann. section 15-3-640 (2005). The statute places a bar on actions based on defective improvements to real property. It reads, in part:
No actions to recover damages based upon or arising out of the defective or unsafe condition of an improvement to real property may be brought more than thirteen years after substantial completion of such an improvement. For purposes of this section, an action based upon or arising out of the defective or unsafe condition of an improvement to real property includes:
(2) an action to recover damages for the negligent construction or repair of an improvement to real property;
(3) an action to recover damages for personal injury , death, or damage to property;
(4) an action to recover damages for economic or monetary loss;
(5) an action in contract or tort or otherwise;
(8) an action brought against any current or prior owner of the real property or improvement
This section describes an outside limitati
Page 1 2 3 South Carolina Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|