Addyman v. Specialties of Greenville, Inc., No. 20989

CourtSouth Carolina Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtRHODES; LEWIS, C. J., LITTLEJOHN and GREGORY, JJ., and JOSEPH R. MOSS
Citation273 S.C. 342,257 S.E.2d 149
Decision Date19 June 1979
Docket NumberNo. 20989
PartiesMary Ann ADDYMAN, Appellant, v. SPECIALTIES OF GREENVILLE, INC. Respondent. Peter D. ADDYMAN, Appellant, v. SPECIALTIES OF GREENVILLE, INC., Respondent.

Page 149

257 S.E.2d 149
273 S.C. 342
Mary Ann ADDYMAN, Appellant,
v.
SPECIALTIES OF GREENVILLE, INC. Respondent.
Peter D. ADDYMAN, Appellant,
v.
SPECIALTIES OF GREENVILLE, INC., Respondent.
No. 20989.
Supreme Court of South Carolina.
June 19, 1979.

[273 S.C. 343] Michael Parham of Abrams, Bowen, Robertson, Tapp & Parham, Greenville, for appellants.

G. Dewey Oxner, Jr., of Haynsworth, Perry, Bryant, Marion & Johnstone, Greenville, for respondent.

RHODES, Justice:

Appellant, Mary Ann Addyman, commenced this action against the corporate respondent, Specialties of Greenville, Inc., to recover for property damage and personal injuries sustained in an automobile accident. 1 She now appeals from an adverse

Page 150

jury verdict assigning error in the lower court's exclusion of evidence. We reverse.

The appellant alleged that the accident was precipitated by the respondent's employee who, in disregard of a stop sign, pulled onto the highway on which she was traveling. The appellant did not join the driver of the vehicle, Mr. Adamson, respondent's employee, as a party defendant, but sued only the corporate defendant on the theory of negligence.

[273 S.C. 344] Resolution of this appeal is governed by two evidentiary questions:

I. Should a post-accident statement by respondent's employee on the issue of liability by admitted in evidence against his principal?

II. Should the corporate employee's plea of guilty to a traffic violation issued at the time of the accident be admitted on cross-examination for purposes of impeaching the employee's testimony as a witness?

I.

During her case in chief, the appellant attempted to introduce testimony by a disinterested witness concerning remarks made to him by respondent's driver shortly following the accident. The witness, Mr. Lamb, operated a wrecker service in very close proximity to the site of the accident and testified that, although he did not view the accident, he heard the crash and immediately drove to the scene. According to Mr. Lamb's proffered testimony, Mr. Adamson approached him approximately four to five minutes after his arrival and made the following statement:

"Q. Mr. Lamb, after you arrived at the scene, after Mr. Adamson came over to you, what, if anything, did he say?

"A. He said, 'It must be too early in the morning,' that he couldn't, you know, something like, 'I'm half asleep and I didn't see her when she came over the hill.' "

The trial court excluded this testimony on the stated ground that it constituted hearsay and did not qualify under any recognized exception to the hearsay rule.

The trial court erred in refusing to admit the statement as a part of Res gestae. To qualify as a part of Res gestae, the statement must be:

". . . substantially contemporaneous with the litigated transaction, and be the instinctive, spontaneous utterances [273 S.C. 345] of the mind while under the active, immediate influences of the transaction; the circumstances precluding the idea that the utterances are the result of reflection or designed to make false or self-serving declaration." (Citations Omitted).

State v. Long, 186 S.C. 439, 195 S.E. 624 (1938).

...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 practice notes
  • Clark v. Ross, No. 0406
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • 21 novembre 1984
    ...Assuming Dr. Sims's out-of-court statement constituted inadmissible hearsay [ see Addyman v. Specialties of Greenville, Inc., 273 S.C. 342, 257 S.E.2d 149 (1979); Bain v. Self Memorial Hospital, 281 S.C. 138, 314 S.E.2d 603 (S.C.App.1984); W. Reiser, A Comparison of the Federal Rules of Evi......
  • State v. Ball, No. 22705
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • 9 février 1987
    ...Jamison v. Howard, 275 S.C. 344, 271 S.E.2d 116 (1980) [assault and battery with intent to kill]; Addyman v. Specialties of Greenville, 273 S.C. 342, 257 S.E.2d 149 (1979) [failure to yield right of way]; State v. Jones, 271 S.C. 287, 247 S.E.2d 43 (1978) [assault with intent to rape]; Stat......
  • Bain v. Self Memorial Hosp., No. 0127
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • 26 janvier 1984
    ...are the result of reflection or designed to make false or self-serving declaration[s]." Addyman v. Specialties of Greenville, Inc., 273 S.C. 342 at 344-345, 257 S.E.2d 149 at 150 In Lazar v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., 197 S.C. 74 at 83, 14 S.E.2d 560 at 563 (1941), the court......
  • Doe v. Asbury, No. 0139
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • 23 février 1984
    ...precluding the idea of reflection or design to make false or self-serving statements. Addyman v. Specialties of Greenville, Inc., 273 S.C. 342, 257 S.E.2d 149 (1979). However, statements which are otherwise admissible as part of the res gestae are not rendered inadmissible because they are ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
8 cases
  • Clark v. Ross, No. 0406
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • 21 novembre 1984
    ...Assuming Dr. Sims's out-of-court statement constituted inadmissible hearsay [ see Addyman v. Specialties of Greenville, Inc., 273 S.C. 342, 257 S.E.2d 149 (1979); Bain v. Self Memorial Hospital, 281 S.C. 138, 314 S.E.2d 603 (S.C.App.1984); W. Reiser, A Comparison of the Federal Rules of Evi......
  • State v. Ball, No. 22705
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • 9 février 1987
    ...Jamison v. Howard, 275 S.C. 344, 271 S.E.2d 116 (1980) [assault and battery with intent to kill]; Addyman v. Specialties of Greenville, 273 S.C. 342, 257 S.E.2d 149 (1979) [failure to yield right of way]; State v. Jones, 271 S.C. 287, 247 S.E.2d 43 (1978) [assault with intent to rape]; Stat......
  • Bain v. Self Memorial Hosp., No. 0127
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • 26 janvier 1984
    ...are the result of reflection or designed to make false or self-serving declaration[s]." Addyman v. Specialties of Greenville, Inc., 273 S.C. 342 at 344-345, 257 S.E.2d 149 at 150 In Lazar v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., 197 S.C. 74 at 83, 14 S.E.2d 560 at 563 (1941), the court......
  • Doe v. Asbury, No. 0139
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • 23 février 1984
    ...precluding the idea of reflection or design to make false or self-serving statements. Addyman v. Specialties of Greenville, Inc., 273 S.C. 342, 257 S.E.2d 149 (1979). However, statements which are otherwise admissible as part of the res gestae are not rendered inadmissible because they are ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT