GAZOO v. CITY OF COLUMBIA, 260 S.C. 371 (1973)

196 S.E.2d 106

Lydia GAZOO, Respondent v. CITY OF COLUMBIA and Archie Kottler, of whom City of Columbia is, Appellant.

19610Supreme Court of South Carolina.
April 16, 1973.

Roy D. Bates, Esq., of Columbia, for Appellant, cites:As to allegation that a traffic control signal shows green

Page 372

for traffic proceeding north on a street and red for traffic proceeding south on the same street not being sufficient to set forth a defect or malfunction: 7. N.Y.2d 579, 200 N.Y.S.2d 409, 167 N.E.2d 63; 35 Wis.2d 504, 151 N.W.2d 129. As to a malfunctioning traffic signal not constituting a defect in the street within the meaning of Section 47-70 of the Code of Laws of South Carolina, 1962: 238 S.C. 584, 121 S.E.2d 213; 213 S.C. 68, 48 S.E.2d 585; 234 S.C. 428, 108 S.E.2d 825; Annot., 161 A.L.R. 1404 (1946); 57 Am.Jur. Municipal, School, and State Tort Liability, Sec. 126 (1971); McQuillin, Municipal Corporations, Sec. 53.42 (3d Ed. Rev. 1963); 68 So.2d 385; 98 Ga. App. 746, 106 S.E.2d 347; 4 N.C. App. 497, 167 S.E.2d 48; 232 Ala. 47, 166 So. 689; 41 Ohio App. 420, 180 N.E. 78; 332 Mo. 145, 56 S.W.2d 778; 56 S.W. at 782; 224 Ga. 834, 165 S.E.2d 141; 105 Ariz. 125, 460 P.2d 179; 216 A.2d 172; 444 P.2d 882; 210 So.2d 534; 20 A.D.2d 836, 247 N.Y.S.2d 897; 43 S.C. 398, 21 S.E. 315; 129 S.C. 257, 123 S.E. 839; 167 S.C. 231, 166 S.E. 120; 235 S.C. 44, 109 S.E.2d 697; 89 S.C. 511, 72 S.E. 228; 72 S.E. at 231; 171 S.C. 196, 171 S.E. 916; 175 S.C. 127, 177 S.E. 894; Annot., 45 A.L.R. 800 (1926); 176 S.C. 518, 180 S.E. 670; 228 S.C. 530, 91 S.E.2d 161; 196 S.C. 117, 12 S.E.2d 848; 249 S.C. 230, 153 S.E.2d 687; Section 33-299 of the Code of Laws of South Carolina, 1962; 153 S.E.2d at 689; 250 S.C. 132, 156 S.E.2d 419; 162 S.C. 507, 161 S.E. 98; 111 S.C. 7, 96 S.E. 675, 678.

Dallas D. Ball, Esq., of Columbia, for Respondent, cites:As to allegations that a traffic control signal shows green for traffic proceeding North on a street and red for traffic proceeding South on the same street being sufficient to set forth a defect or malfunction: 249 S.C. 230, 153 S.E.2d 687; Section 33-229, of the South Carolina Code of Laws (ann. 1962); 250 S.C. 132, 156 S.E.2d 419.

Page 373

As to a malfunctioning traffic signal constituting a defect in the street within the meaning of Section 47-70 of the Code of Laws of South Carolina, 1962: 167 S.C. 231, 166 S.E. 120; 255 S.C. 477, 179 S.E.2d 614; 244 S.C. 186, 190, 135 S.E.2d 838; 238 S.C. 584, 121 S.E.2d 213; 228 S.C. 530, 91 S.E.2d 161; 196 Kan. 393, 411 P.2d 634; 29 Conn. Sup. 107, 273 A.2d 725; 29 Conn. Sup. 352, 287 A.2d 643; 362 Mich. 19, 106 N.W.2d 538; 444 P.2d 882; 29 Mich. App. 51, 185 N.W.2d 111; 216 A.2d 172; 89 S.C. 511, 72 S.E. 228; 167 S.C. 231, 166 S.E. 120; 171 S.C. 196, 171 S.E. 916; 228 S.C. 530, 91 S.E.2d 161; 196 S.C. 117, 12 S.E.2d 848; 176 S.C. 518, 180 S.E. 670.

April 16, 1973.

LITTLEJOHN, Justice.

This case involves basically the same issue dealt with in the case of Fox, etc., et al v. City of Columbia, 196 S.E.2d 105, filed herewith.

The only difference in the two cases lies in the fact that in this case the complaint alleges that the traffic light was defective in that it indicated a red light for traffic going south on Main Street, while indicating a green light for traffic going north on Main Street at a street intersection. Herein both the City of Columbia and the operator of another vehicle are made parties-defendant. The demurrer of the City of Columbia was overruled. The contention of counsel for the city that the complaint does not factually allege a malfunction, but sets forth merely a conclusion is without merit. The issue must be met on trial and not disposed of by demurrer. In both cases, the traffic light is alleged to have been defective and it is alleged that such defect proximately caused the injuries.

The lower court properly overruled the demurrer. Let the City of Columbia have twenty days from the date of filing of the remittitur in which to answer.

Page 374

Affirmed.

MOSS, C.J., and LEWIS, BUSSEY and BRAILSFORD, JJ., concur.