For the reasons set forth in Robinson v. N.C. Dept. of Transportation, 89 N.C. App. 572, 366 S.E. 2d 492 (1988), we reverse the order of the superior court.
Reversed and remanded.
Judges PHILLIPS and Cozort concur.
Robinson v. North Carolina Department of Transportation, 89 N.C. App. 574 (1988)
April 5, 1988
·
North Carolina Court of Appeals
·
No. 8713SC909
89 N.C. App. 574
J. W. ROBINSON and wife, LILLIAN ROBINSON v. NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION and LEE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY
No. 8713SC909
(Filed 5 April 1988)
APPEAL by plaintiffs from Stephens, Judge. Order entered 29 June 1987 in Superior Court, Brunswick County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 11 February 1988.
*575In the spring of 1985, Lee Construction Company, under contract with the North Carolina Department of Transportation, began construction of a bridge across the Intracoastal Waterway to connect Holden Beach with the mainland via Highway 130. Under the terms of the construction contract, the bridge was to be supported by concrete pile foundations. Lee Construction Company drove the piles 20 to 25 feet into the ground creating vibrations in the surrounding ground. Plaintiffs’ property, located on the west side of Highway 130 and adjacent to the bridge construction, suffered damage.
In their complaint, plaintiffs stated that the vibrations caused damage to a residential structure on their property. Specifically, a porch, floor coverings and sheetrock cracked, supporting piers settled, pictures fell from walls, a chandelier fell from the ceiling and floors became unlevel and unsteady. Plaintiffs informed the on-site superintendent of the damage which was occurring but Lee Construction Company continued the pile driving operations.
Plaintiffs filed this action against the Department of Transportation and Lee Construction Company alleging that they were entitled to recover damages from the Department of Transportation for inverse condemnation under G.S. 136-111 or, in the alternative, that they were entitled to recover damages from Lee Construction Company for trespass.
The Department denied plaintiffs’ allegations of damages resulting from the bridge construction and moved to dismiss the action pursuant to Rule 12(b) of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure. Judge Stephens granted the Department’s motion and dismissed the complaint as against the Department of Transportation on the grounds that the complaint failed to state a claim for relief and that the court lacked subject matter and personal jurisdiction. From the order of the trial court, plaintiffs appeal.
Powell and Gore, by William A. Powell, for plaintiff appellants.
Attorney General Lacy H. Thornburg, by Assistant Attorneys General Evelyn M. Coman and David R. Minges, for defendant appellee Department of Transportation.