>
Appellants, v. COMMISSIONERS OF PUBLIC WORKS, Randell C. Stoney, C. Fletcher
Carter, Jr., Steve Moskos, Joseph P. Riley, Jr., and Daniel Richardson, as
Commissioners elected and exofficio, Respondents
331 S.E.2d 371;
1985 S.C. App. LEXIS 381
February 27, 1985, Heard
May 30, 1985, Decided
PRIOR HISTORY:
[***1]
Appeal from Charleston County, Louis E. Condon, Master In Equity
DISPOSITION: Affirmed.
COUNSEL:
G. Dan Bowling, Charleston,
for appellants.
Lucas C. Padgett, Jr. and
Michael A. Scardato, Morris, Duffy and Boone, Charleston,
for respondents.
JUDGES: Gardner, Judge. Cureton and Goolsby, JJ., concur.
OPINIONBY: GARDNER
OPINION:
[*11]
[**371] The Charleston Committee for Safe Water (the Committee) filed this suit to
enjoin as a nuisance the proposed fluoridation of the water supply of the City
of Charleston. The case was referred to a master who refused to issue an
injunction. By consent of the parties, this is a direct appeal from the
master’s order. We affirm.
The sole issue on
appeal is whether the findings of the master are supported by the record. No
issue of law is involved.
To enjoin an anticipated nuisance, it must appear that a nuisance will
inevitably result from the act or thing sought to be enjoined.
Strong v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., 240 S.C. 244, 125 S.E. (2d) 628 (1962). The inevitability required by this rule is the crux of this case.
The appealed order, with reference
[***2] to the credibility of the witnesses, noted that the witnesses who appeared for
the Committee were ardent antifluoridationists, whose views, though sincerely
held, were inconsonant with the medical and scientific opinion of the great
majority of medical and scientific experts in this
country. As an example, the Committee contends that
fluoride added to water acts as a carcinogen
[**372] (a cancer inducing agent). Dr. Yiamouyiannis, a witness for the Committee,
testified that
fluoride was a carcinogen; however, the testimony of respected scientists from the
Center of Disease Control in Atlanta, Georgia, and the Laboratory of
Developmental
Biology and Anomalis at the National Institute of Dental Research contradicted
this testimony. Additionally, documentary evidence was introduced which
indicated that the National Cancer Institute saw no danger from water
fluoridation.
The record of this case is voluminous. This court has examined it thoroughly
and held the master’s order is fully supported by the record and correct
in every respect. The burden of proof required by
Strong v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., supra,
[***3] was not met by the Committee. The order of the master is affirmed.
[*12] Affirmed.
Return to Fluoride-Related Court Cases
Return to Fluoridation page
Return to ACTION Center Homepage
http://actionpa.org/fluoride/lawsandcourts/sc-charleston.html