Bradley v. Somers
| Decision Date | 03 October 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 22178,22178 |
| Citation | 283 S.C. 365,322 S.E.2d 665 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | Christine BRADLEY, Respondent, v. David SOMERS, Appellant. . Heard |
Coming B. Gibbs, Jr., of Gibbs & Holmes, Charleston, for appellant.
Ann M. Stirling and Michael P. O'Connell of Stirling & O'Connell, Charleston, for respondent.
The respondent Christine Bradley initiated this breach of promise to marry action against the appellant Captain David Somers. The jury found the appellant liable and awarded the respondent $60,000 in actual damages. We reverse and remand for a new trial solely on the issue of damages.
The facts in this case weave a web of tangled love affairs. The respondent (Christine) married a Marine Corps major when she was quite young. After a number of years of marriage, during a period when Christine's husband was at sea, a married girlfriend of Christine's invited her to dinner. The hostess had invited a date for herself and one for Christine. Christine's date was the appellant, Captain David Somers, USN, then a married man. The Captain and Christine began to date. (They even attended the theatre with tickets that Christine's husband had purchased.) The Captain and Christine soon commenced sexual relations; Christine testified that she was never physically attracted to the Major. Thereafter, Christine and the Captain decided to divorce their spouses in order to marry each other. By May 11, 1982 the final divorce for each had been obtained, and wedding plans continued.
In preparation for the wedding date of June 20, 1982, Captain Somers and Christine ordered special wedding bands from the Smithsonian Institution. They also arranged for the ceremony to take place in the First Presbyterian Church in Hilton Head, to be performed by Dr. Kinchelowe, the church pastor. The parties also engaged an organist, caterer, photographer, florist, and baker. In preparation for the wedding, Christine purchased a wedding dress, silk bouquet, shoes, and nightgown. She bought a Cross desk set as a gift for the groom bearing the engraving "David W. Somers, Jr., June 20, 1982."
The night before the wedding, the groom confessed to the bride that he had cold feet. However, his fears eventually seemed to subside. On the wedding day, the wedding guests began to gather at the church. Christine donned her wedding dress, and the organ began to play. Christine and the Captain went to the pastor's office to sign the marriage license. The Captain then told his bride that he could not go through with the marriage and that "there is someone else." After he told her the shocking news, Christine saw the Captain's daughter, Jennifer, standing nearby dressed in sweatpants and a swimsuit. The Captain testified that he had not told Jennifer about the wedding for fear she would try to stop it.
Jennifer testified that she was extremely upset that her father had not told her of his wedding plans. As a matter of fact, Jennifer was fond of David's "buddy" Thelma Fisk, whom he married about five months later. During the discussions between the bride and groom, Jennifer, and the minister, the time for the ceremony passed. The organist continued to repeat the same song, and the audience became uncomfortable. Finally, Dr. Kinchelowe announced to the guests that the wedding would not take place.
Christine was humiliated, devastated, nauseated, and, shortly thereafter, suicidal. She obtained psychiatric treatment for which she received a $3,000 statement. Christine testified that, to this day, she is not normal, has fits of raving, and has a severe distrust of men.
The major issue on appeal concerns Christine's testimony regarding her first marriage and the judge's refusal to charge the jury that it could not award damages for the dissolution of that marriage. In response to questions concerning her first marriage, the respondent testified: We believe that admitting the testimony and refusing to make a curative charge constitute prejudicial error.
Damages for breach of promise to marry are confined to those relating to the position the rejected spouse (Christine) would have held had she married the appellant. She is entitled to recover for the loss of the pecuniary and social advantages of the promised marriage. Also, her mental anguish, humiliation, and injury to health and psyche are elements of damages. In addition, she may recover for losses sustained from expenditures made in preparation of marriage. The jury may consider the monetary value of a marriage which would have given Christine a home. See 12 Am.Jur.2d, Breach of Promise, §§ 26, 27 (1964).
However, the courts have held that one who breaks an engagement in order to marry another may not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Campbell v. Robinson
...to marry action because South Carolina courts no longer recognize the claim. He acknowledges our supreme court in Bradley v. Somers, 283 S.C. 365, 322 S.E.2d 665 (1984), explicitly refused to eliminate promise to marry claims. Id. at 368–69, 322 S.E.2d at 667. However, he maintains Russo v.......
-
§ 1.05 Actions Between Persons Who Were Engaged to Be Married
...Cannon v. Miller, 71 N.C. App. 460, 322 S.E.2d 780, vacated 313 N.C. 324, 327 S.E.2d 888 (1984). South Carolina: Bradley v. Somers, 283 S.C. 365, 322 S.E.2d 665 (1984); Campbell v. Robinson, 398 S.C. 12, 726 S.E.2d 221 (2012). Washington: Stanard v. Bolin, 88 Wash.2d 614, 65 P.2d 94 (1977).......