ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2018 Oct 05 9:20 AM - HORRY - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2018CP2605575

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS

FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
COUNTY OF HORRY C/A NO. 2018-CP-26-

Leah Hornberger, David Campbell, Bruce )

Stoughton and Donna Stoughton, )
)
Plaintiff(s), )
) SUMMONS
vs. )
)
Horry County, )
)
Defendant(s). )
)

TO: THE DEFENDANT ABOVE NAMED:

YOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED and required to answer the Complaint in this action,

of which a copy is herewith served upon you, and to serve a copy of your answer to the said

Complaint on the subscriber or subscribers at his or their office at Suite 209, The Courtyard,

1500 U.S. Highway 17 North, Post Office Drawer 14547, Surfside Beach, South Carolina 29587

within thirty (30) days after the service hereof; exclusive of the day of such service; and if you

fail to answer the Complaint within the time aforesaid; the Plaintiff in this action will apply to

the Court for the relief demanded in the Complaint and judgment by default will be rendered

against you for the relief demanded in the Complaint.

KELAHER, CONNELL & CONNOR, P.C.

s/ Gene M. Connell, Jr.

Gene M. Connell, Jr. (S.C. Bar No. 1358)
The Courtyard, Suite 209
1500 U.S. Highway 17 North
Post Office Drawer 14547
Surfside Beach, South Carolina 29587-4547
(843) 238-5648 (phone)
(843) 238-5050 (facsimile)
gconnell@classactlaw.net
October 5, 2018 Attorney for Plaintiffs
Surfside Beach, South Carolina
 ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2018 Oct 05 9:20 AM - HORRY - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2018CP2605575
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
COUNTY OF HORRY C/A NO. 2018-CP-26-

Leah Hornberger, David Campbell, Bruce )

Stoughton and Donna Stoughton, )
)
Plaintiff(s), ) COMPLAINT
) (Negligence/Nuisance/Breach of
vs. ) Easement/Trespass/Inverse
) Condemnation)
Horry County, )
) JURY TRIAL
Defendant(s). )

The Plaintiffs, complaining of the Defendant, would respectfully allege unto this Court as

follows:

1. The Plaintiffs Leah Hornberger, David Campbell, Bruce Stoughton and Donna

Stoughton are citizens and residents of Horry County, South Carolina.

2. The Defendant Horry County is a governmental entity organized and existing

pursuant to the laws of the State of South Carolina and doing business as a county.

3. That Horry County has a storm water management department and such storm water

management department is in charge of drainage maintenance and improvements throughout the

County, including properly maintaining storm drainage infrastructure, inspecting and keeping

ditches clear, maintaining storm water easements, preparing for storms and taking action to make

sure that residents do not get flooded.

4. On or about October 8, 2016, the Plaintiffs were either residents or owners of 120

Bellegrove Drive, Myrtle Beach, South Carolina. That during the morning and evening of

October 8, 2016 floodwaters damaged Plaintiffs’ home causing damage to Plaintiffs’ home and real

estate and Plaintiffs’ personal property.

 ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2018 Oct 05 9:20 AM - HORRY - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2018CP2605575
5. That officers, agents, and employees of Horry County were aware that the road

owned and operated by Horry County had not been properly built so that floodwaters flowed over

top the roads near Plaintiffs’ property.

6. That County employees, including the director of Horry County’s Stormwater, Tom

Garigen, admitted to local newspapers that the pipes were not big enough to take the waters that

were never meant to go through the subdivision and that there were beaver dams blocking the flow

of water near International Drive and Highway 22. Further, there were undersized pipes on River

Oaks and International Drive along with the roads being below grade, all of which caused storm

water to flood Plaintiffs’ house.

7. That Defendant Horry County, through its officers, agents, and/or employees was

negligent, reckless, and willful in one or more of the following particulars:

a. in failing to inform Plaintiffs that the drainage was not up to Horry County
Stormwater ordinances and requirements;

b. in failing to inform the Plaintiffs that the road near Plaintiffs’ house was
under grade and that the water would flow over it;

c. in failing to ensure a functional drainage system;

d. in failing to improve the original drainage design;

e. in failing to put in properly sized pipes;

f. in failing to warn Plaintiffs that properly sized pipes had not been put in;

g. in failing to manage the drainage system such that it would not flood
Plaintiffs’ property;

h. in failing to maintain the drainage system such that it would not flood the
Plaintiffs’ property;

i. in failing to devise a method for channeling water away from the Plaintiffs’
property;

j. in channeling the water in such a way that it would flood the Plaintiffs’
property;

2
 ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2018 Oct 05 9:20 AM - HORRY - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2018CP2605575
k. in connecting a series of ditches and pipes so that all water would flow onto
Plaintiffs’ property;

l. in failing to advise the Plaintiffs that the water would channel over their
property;

m. in failing to advise the Plaintiffs that during times of heavy rains their
property would flood;

n. in failing to build spillways and/or diversion channels away from Plaintiffs’

property;

o. in failing to devise an alternative plan for the subdivision the Plaintiffs lived
in;

p. in failing to devise an alternative flood plan;

q. in failing to properly design and/or engineer drainage ditches so that they

would not flood the Plaintiffs’ property;

r. in failing to use generally accepted engineering practices to change the

course of the drainage ditches;

s. in failing to use appropriate and reasonable storm calculations in deciding

how much flow the property around the Plaintiffs would handle;

t. in failing to enhance the local environment associated with the drainage

system so that the Plaintiffs’ property would not flood;

u. in failing to control the adverse effects of increased stormwater runoff

associated with both future land development and existing developed land so
that the Plaintiffs’ property would not flood;

v. in failing to maintain as nearly as possible the pre-developed runoff

characteristics of the area;

w. in changing the direction of the flow which caused damage to the Plaintiffs’
property;

x. in placing additional water into the drainage ditches owned by the County
which caused the Plaintiffs’ property to flood;

8. That as a direct and proximate result, the Plaintiffs continued to suffer severe and

catastrophic damage to their home and residence, including having floodwaters inside their homes

3
 ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2018 Oct 05 9:20 AM - HORRY - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2018CP2605575
on a regular basis, to include damage to floors, walls, insulation, baseboards, cabinetry, doors,

electrical switches, air conditioning, heating, flooring, tile, and all other aspects of their home.

9. That Plaintiffs have had damage to their personal property, which such personal

property includes electronic items, clothing, furniture, kitchen utensils, towels, linens, bedding and

lamps.

10. That further Plaintiffs are informed and believe that the home in question is now

depreciated based on the flooding which occurred and that Plaintiffs have lost part of the value of

their home and that the home cannot be sold for fair market value without disclosure of the

flooding.

11. That the Plaintiffs ask for judgment against Defendant for actual damages, for

punitive damages, and for the costs of this action.

FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

(Nuisance)

12. The Plaintiffs reallege and reiterate each and every allegation as fully as if repeated

verbatim herein.

13. The above-named Defendant Horry County’s conduct in channeling water through

various artificial pipes and ditches onto the Plaintiffs’ property resulted in an unreasonable

interference with Plaintiffs’ use and enjoyment of their property, which occurs when there is heavy

rain.

14. The aforementioned action is a nuisance which has become dangerous and is a

threat to life, health and severe damage has been done to the Plaintiffs’ property as outlined in the

First Cause of Action.

4
 ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2018 Oct 05 9:20 AM - HORRY - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2018CP2605575
15. The Plaintiffs ask for judgment against the Defendant for actual damages, for

punitive damages, for nuisance and also request a permanent injunction requiring this Defendant to

not channel water through ditches onto or near the Plaintiffs’ property.

FOR A THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

(Breach of Easement)

16. The Plaintiffs reallege and reiterate each and every allegation as fully as if repeated

verbatim herein.

17. That the Defendant did breach its agreement with Plaintiffs to keep the

aforementioned easement owned by Defendant clean, maintained, inspected, and improved so that

water would move in an unobstructed manner through the drainage easement and not flood the

Plaintiffs’ property.

18. That Defendant has failed to comply with the easement, has failed to build the road

properly, has failed to improve the drainage, has failed to have properly sized drainage pipes, has

failed to upgrade the drainage, and has failed to make sure that they were unobstructed.

19. That Plaintiffs ask for judgment against Defendant for breach of the easement, and

for damages as more particularly described in the above causes of action. Plaintiffs ask for

judgment against the Defendant for breach of easement, attorney’s fees, and for actual damages and

for costs.

FOR A FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Trespass)

20. The Plaintiffs reallege and reiterate each and every allegation as fully as if repeated

verbatim herein.

21. Plaintiff brings this cause of action for trespass.

5
 ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2018 Oct 05 9:20 AM - HORRY - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2018CP2605575
22. That water from Defendant’s actions was channeled artificially onto the Plaintiffs’

property without consent.

23. That the aforementioned channeling is a trespass and has caused damage to the

Plaintiffs’ property, caused erosion, and has threatened Plaintiffs’ home and lot.

24. That Defendant through a master drainage stormwater management system has in

effect devised and/or connected all ditches such that water flows onto Plaintiffs’ property through

undersized pipes, through drainage not intendended to connect and over roads which were not built

properly pursuant to specifications required by law.

25. That continual trespass occurred on Plaintiffs’ property such that their house was

flooded and their personal effects lost.

26. That stormwater from all the Defendant’s actions was physically moved onto the

Plaintiffs’ property in a deliberate scheme and/or plan to flood them.

27. That the aforementioned affirmative acts by Defendant invade the Plaintiffs’

property in an intentional manner and cause great and grievous irreparable harm to the Plaintiffs’

property.

28. The Plaintiffs bring this cause of action for actual damages to their home, their real

property, for depreciation concerning the sale of their home and for the loss of their personal

property and for injunctive relief requiring Defendant not to allow Plaintiffs’ property to be flooded

again.

FOR A FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Inverse Condemnation)

29. The Plaintiffs reallege and reiterate each and every allegation as fully as if repeated

verbatim herein.

6
 ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2018 Oct 05 9:20 AM - HORRY - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2018CP2605575
30. That the Defendant, through affirmative, aggressive, governmental acts, has

effectively condemned Plaintiffs’ property by channeling stormwater onto Plaintiffs’ property.

31. That Defendant acted pursuant to a common scheme or plan whereby all of the

water was channeled artificially into undersized pipes and over a road which had not been properly

built.

32. That these acts by Defendant Horry County were affirmative, positive and

aggressive acts and were taken on behalf of the Defendant Horry County for a public purpose and

that they are, in fact, permanent since the drainage system could flood Plaintiffs’ property again.

33. That Plaintiffs believe that their property (both real and personal) has been inversely

condemned and hereby request damages.

34. That the Defendant participated and implemented a comprehensive engineering

stormwater management plan and did not comply with that plan appropriately, including installing

undersized pipes and not allowing the water to flow appropriately under roads leading to the

Plaintiffs’ property. As a result, the Plaintiffs’ home was flooded and both the home and personal

property lost.

35. That Plaintiffs ask for damages as outlined in the first cause of action to include

actual damages and an Order enjoining the Defendant from channeling any water through the pipes

and/or ditches under and around the Plaintiffs’ property.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment as follows:

A. On the First Cause of Action for actual damages, punitive damages and the costs of

this action.

B. On the Second Cause of Action for actual damages, punitive damages and the costs

of this action.

7
 ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2018 Oct 05 9:20 AM - HORRY - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2018CP2605575
C. On the Third Cause of Action for actual damages, punitive damages and the costs of

this action.

D. On the Fourth Cause of Action for actual damages, punitive damages and the costs

of this action.

E. On the Fifth Cause of Action for actual damages, punitive damages and the costs of

this action.

KELAHER, CONNELL & CONNOR, P.C.

s/ Gene M. Connell, Jr.

Gene M. Connell, Jr. (S.C. Bar No. 1358)
The Courtyard, Suite 209
1500 U.S. Highway 17 North
Post Office Drawer 14547
Surfside Beach, South Carolina 29587-4547
(843) 238-5648 (phone)
(843) 238-5050 (facsimile)
gconnell@classactlaw.net
October 5, 2018 Attorney for Plaintiffs
Surfside Beach, South Carolina