Department had notice of the defec tive condition of the tree and of the danger the tree posed to persons and property in its vicinity. In South Carolina, as elsewhere, a public authority, such as the Department, is liable for damages caused by the fall of a tree standing within the limits of or in close proximity to its highway, provided the public authority had notice, or in the exercise of reasonable care should have been informed, that the condition of the tree was such as to make it hazardous to persons or property in the immediate vicinity. 39 Am. Jur. (2d) Highways, Streets, and Bridges § 541 at 947-48 (1968); Annot., 95 A.L.R. (3d) 778 at 789-95 (1979); Annot., 14 A.L.R. (2d) 186 at 203 (1950); see Inabinett v. State Highway Department, 196 S. C. 117, 12 S. E. (2d) 848 (1941) (<HOLDING>). In addressing the issue of notice, we must
holding a landowner not liable for an accident on a country road caused by a tree which fell from the landowners property holding that a subsequent abandonment of a public rightofway over such a road has no effect on a private easement owned by an abutting landowner holding the department liable for the fall of a tree that stood on private property abutting a highway holding that property owner still has relief in the form of the return of his property though condemnation was complete and a highway was constructed across the property holding that city may by ordinance require abutting landowner to repair sidewalk but that the abutting landowner is not liable in an action in tort for injuries