Five things to know about $6M court verdict against Columbia in car wash trial
The City of Columbia earlier this year was ordered to pay close to $6 million after a nearly 75-year-old car wash sued the city, claiming it was forced to close after Columbia removed a retaining wall meant to prevent severe flooding to the business. Columbia promises to appeal the decision.
Here are five things to know about the ongoing legal battle.
1. What’s the dispute over?
The owner of the now-demolished Constan Car Wash that operated along Gervais Street in Columbia’s Five Points neighborhood claims the city put the nearly 75-year-old operation out of business. Owner O. Stanley “Chip” Smith claims the city took down a retaining wall in 2021 that Smith built in 2018 to prevent flooding at the business. The Car Wash closed in 2022 after 73 years in business, and the building was demolished in late 2023.
2. What did the city do?
Smith spent $40,000 to build the wall along a portion of the property’s Gervais Street boundary with a permit from the city in 2018. During the three years it stood the property didn’t flood, but after the city took the wall down, the waters came back. Smith states the city’s actions caused $4.27 million in damage to him and the business he inherited from his father. A city attorney wrote in a court document that the city “had every legal right to enter the property and remove the wall.”
3. What was the verdict?
In July, Judge Robert Hood ruled in Smith’s favor, ordering the city to pay him $4.2 million, plus interest. Factoring in daily interest, the city now owes nearly $6 million. The city filed a motion earlier this year asking the judge to lower the award to just over $7,000, but that request was denied. The city promises to appeal the verdict.
4. Will the order to pay cost the city?
The city is self-insured and is responsible for paying the verdict itself, but it did not budget for the more than $5 million ruling. The city argued in a court filing that “the $4.2 million judgment here represents a massive expenditure of taxpayer funds, with a direct impact on the City’s budget and its ability to provide essential public services.” The payout would come from the city’s stormwater system fund, which the city says could mean potential delays and reprioritization of infrastructure projects.
5. What are the city’s plans?
Mayor Daniel Rickenmann said in a statement in October that the city plans to “appeal this judgment as this is yet another egregious example of the critical need for judicial reform in our state.”
Attorney Dick Harpootlian, representing Smith, took issue with Rickenmann’s statement, saying that “multiple judges have issued orders in the case pointing to legal errors by the city.” Harpootlian concluded, “If they want to reform anything they might want to reform their legal department.”
