Barker v. Sauls
| Decision Date | 21 April 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 22564,22564 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | Ronald BARKER, Appellant, v. Bill SAULS, d/b/a Bill Sauls Insurance Agency, Respondent. . Heard |
Mike Kelly and John Boswell, both of Ken Suggs--Mike Kelly, Lawyers, P.A., Columbia, for appellant.
Julian M. Sellers, Columbia, for respondent.
This is an appeal from an order of the trial judge sustaining a demurrer to two causes of action. We reverse in part.
Appellant Barker is an officer and employee of Midlands Electrical, Inc. Barker sustained an injury and filed a worker's compensation claim with General Accident Group. General denied the claim, asserting it had no policy for worker's compensation with Midlands Electrical.
Barker brought this action against respondent Sauls, the insurance agent with whom Midlands Electrical had contracted, alleging negligence and fraud. The trial judge sustained demurrers to both causes of action, finding Barker had no capacity to sue since Sauls' contractual relationship was with Midlands Electrical, not Barker.
A tort-feasor may be subjected to tort liability for injury to a third party arising out of the tort-feasor's contractual relationship with another, despite the absence of privity between the tort-feasor and the third party. Terlinde v. Neely, 275 S.C. 395, 271 S.E.2d 768 (1980). The tort-feasor's liability exists independently of contract, and rests upon the tort-feasor's duty to exercise due care. Edward's of Byrnes Downs v. Charleston Sheet Metal Co., Inc., 253 S.C. 537, 172 S.E.2d 120 (1970).
The key inquiry is what duty, if any, is owed by the tort-feasor to the third party. It is essential to liability for negligence that the parties have some relationship recognized by law to support the duty owed by the tort-feasor. 57 Am.Jur.2d, Negligence, Section 36. This duty may be derived from the tort-feasor's contractual relationship with another. See, Ateyeh v. Volkswagen of Florence, Inc., 341 S.E.2d 378 (S.C.1986). In his negligence action Barker alleged the contractual relationship between Sauls and Midlands Electrical as the basis of Sauls' duty to Barker. Therefore, the demurrer to the negligence action should have been overruled.
While we reverse the demurrer to the negligence cause of action, we affirm the trial judge's ruling on the cause of action for fraud. The Court may affirm on any ground appearing in the record. Supreme Court Rule 4, Section 8...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kleckley v. Northwestern Nat. Cas. Co.
...S.E.2d at 380 (footnote omitted). Kleckley argues that Ateyeh, taken in consideration with another Supreme Court case, Barker v. Sauls, 289 S.C. 121, 345 S.E.2d 244 (1986), allows a third party to sue for bad faith failure to pay benefits. In Barker, a company discovered that it did not hav......
-
Kleckley v. Northwestern Nat. Cas. Co.
...proximate cause, or any other element associated with negligence. Kleckley asserts that this Court's holding in Barker v. Sauls, 289 S.C. 121, 345 S.E.2d 244 (1986) allows her to bring a negligence action. In Barker, this Court held that an employee could sue an insurance agent for negligen......
-
Dorrell v. South Carolina Dept. of Transp.
...contractual relationship with another, despite the absence of privity between the tortfeasor and the third party. Barker v. Sauls, 289 S.C. 121, 122, 345 S.E.2d 244, 244 (1986) (citing Terlinde v. J.F. Neely, Sr., 275 S.C. 395, 399, 271 S.E.2d 768, 770 (1980)). The tortfeasor's liability ex......
-
McCullough v. Goodrich & Pennington
...12 (2004) (holding that a subcontractor hired by SCDOT to repave a roadway owed a duty to motorists using the road); Barker v. Sauls, 289 S.C. 121, 345 S.E.2d 244 (1986) (holding that an insurance broker who contracted to sell workers' compensation coverage to an employer was liable to the ......