Did South Carolina’s 2004 accident statute require a driver to report damage to property beside a highway?

Plain-English summary

In January 2004, South Carolina’s Attorney General answered a municipal judge’s question about a driver who left the highway, damaged private property, and departed without giving information. The office identified a statute requiring a driver to locate and notify the owner when an accident damaged a fixture legally on or adjacent to a highway. Whether a flower garden, porch, or swing met that description depended on the item and its location.

The opinion did not classify any of the judge’s examples as a fixture. It said that applying the statute required a factual determination in each case.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2004. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Historical summary

Municipal judges and law enforcement

The AG identified two conditions for the cited accident provision: the damaged thing had to be a fixture and it had to be on or adjacent to a highway. The opinion supplied earlier definitions of fixtures and left application to the facts.

Property owners and drivers

The statute quoted by the office required notice to the owner or person in charge of a qualifying fixture, along with the driver’s name, address, and vehicle registration information. The opinion did not determine whether every kind of property beside a road fell within that rule.

Common questions

Did damage to any private property beside a road trigger this statute?
The AG did not say so. It said the item had to qualify as a fixture and be on or adjacent to the highway.

Was a damaged porch or swing necessarily a fixture?
The opinion made no categorical finding about those examples. It pointed to the item’s attachment to the land, its use with the land, and the intent that it remain there as relevant factors.

Could the AG decide whether a particular driver violated the rule?
No. It described that as a factual determination to be made case by case.

Background and statutory framework

A municipal judge asked whether a state law addressed damage to private property after a vehicle left a highway. The AG quoted the accident-notice statute and earlier opinions defining a fixture, together with a South Carolina Supreme Court decision describing when a chattel becomes part of real property.

Citations and references

The opinion discussed S.C. Code Ann. Section 56-5-1250 as it stood in 2004.

Official title

Questioning whether there are any State statutes addressing a situation where the operator of a motor vehicle leaves a highway and travels onto private property thereby damaging personal property, such as a flower garden, porches or swings.

Requester

The Honorable B. Lee Miller, Municipal Court Judge, City of Greenwood

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/january-21-2004-1/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/04jan21miller.pdf

Original opinion text

The State of South Carolina

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
HENRY McMAsTER

January 21, 2004

ATTORNEY GENERAL

The Honorable B. Lee Miller
Municipal Court Judge, City of Greenwood
Post Office Box 40
Greenwood, South Carolina 29648-0040
Dear Judge Miller:
In a letter to this office you referenced a situation where the operator of a motor vehicle leaves a highway and travels onto private property thereby damaging personal property, such as a flower garden, porches, or swings. He then leaves the scene of the accident without providing information. Consideration then is given to charging the individual with leaving the scene of an accident. You have questioned whether any State statute addresses such situation. S.C. Code Ann. Section 56-5-1250 (1991) provides that I

l

r

The driver ofany vehicle involved in an accident resulting only in damage to fixtures legally upon or adjacent to a highway shall take reasonable steps to locate and notify the owner or person in charge of such property of such fact and of his name and address and of the registration number of the vehicle be is driving and shall upon request and if available exhibit his driver's license and shall make report of such accident when and as required in Section 56-5-1270.

~7. '

A prior opinion of this office dated July 17, 1973 stated that the term "fixtures" is defined as " ... a chattel attached to realty, becoming accessory to it and part and parcel of it and ordinarily the property of the owner of the land...." In its decision in Planter's Bank v. Lummus Cotton Gin Co., 132 S.C. 16, 23, 128 S.E. 876(1924), theStateSupremeCourtindicated that the following elements are necessary for a chattel to be part of the realty: (l)Actual or constructive annexation of the chattel to the realty or to something appurtenant thereto; (2) appropriation of the chattel to the use or purpose ofthat part of the realty with which it is connected; (3) the intention of the party making the annexation to make the chattel a permanent accession to the freehold, this intention being inferred from the nature of the article affixed, the relation and situation of the party making the annexation, the structure and mode of the annexation, and the purpose or use for which the annexation has been made.

(J~t{AJj ~~

BUilDJNG • POST OrncEBox 11549 • CoUJMB.I A, s.c. 29211-1549 • TELEPHONE: 803-734-3970 •

FACSIMILE:

803-253~283

The Honorable B. Lee Miller
Page2
January 21, 2004

Another opinion dated June 7, 1965 defined "fixtures" as " ... that which has become attached to the realty so as to be considered part of it."

l
I
I

For an item damaged to be considered to be within the purview of Section 56-5-1250 it must come within the definition of a "fixture" as defined above and be "adjacent to a highway". Such would be a factual determination made on a case by case basis. I would refer you to the definitions set forth above to consider in making such a determination. With kind regards, I am,

Charles H. Richardson
Senior Assistant Attorney General
REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY:

ffe-£ !2! GJl-I

L
I

Robert D. Cook
Assistant Deputy Attorney General