Brewer v. Morris, 20549

• Decision Date: 28 November 1977
• Docket Number: No. 20549,20549
• Citation: 269 S.C. 607,239 S.E.2d 318
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: Barbara BREWER, Respondent, v. Marshall L. MORRIS, Jr., and Ag-Rotor, Inc., Appellants.

Page 318

239 S.E.2d 318

269 S.C. 607

Barbara BREWER, Respondent, v. Marshall L. MORRIS, Jr., and Ag-Rotor, Inc., Appellants.

No. 20549.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

Nov. 28, 1977.

Nelson, Mullins, Grier & Scarborough, Columbia, for appellants.

Land & Harness, Manning, for respondent.

RHODES, Justice.

Plaintiff-Respondent (Barbara Brewer) brings this action against Defendants-Appellants (Marshall L. Morris, Jr., and his employer, Ag-Rotor, Inc.) alleging that her automobile was damaged as a result of having been sprayed by a chemical insecticide known as Triple-Kill while the respondents were engaged in their business of aerially applying chemicals to agricultural crops. A jury verdict was returned for the plaintiff. The principal question raised on this appeal is whether the trial judge erred in excluding evidence of the effect of this chemical on the paint of other automobiles. We hold that he did and remand for a new trial.

The evidentiary question here involved is occasioned by the contention of appellants that Triple-Kill was a non-corrosive chemical and would not damage an automobile's finish.

During the trial Morris, who was the pilot of the helicopter engaged in spraying the chemical, testified that at the time in question he had been using Triple-Kill, a chemical insecticide manufactured by Helena Chemical Company. When Morris attempted to testify as to his experience with the chemical and its effect on the finishes of other automobiles, the testimony was excluded. The defendants also offered testimony from Billy Frierson, an employee of Helena Chemical Company, who testified he was familiar with Triple-Kill and its properties and characteristics and that all Triple-Kill was "made up the same". When this witness attempted to testify as to the effects of the chemical on automobile paint, this testimony was likewise excluded.

Evidence of similar accidents, transactions, or happenings is admissible in South Carolina where there is some special relation between them which would tend to prove or disprove some fact in dispute. E. g. Turner v. Wilson, 227 S.C. 95, 86 S.E.2d 867 (1955). In actuality, it is simply a rule of relevancy, logic, and common sense. Gantt v. Columbia Coca-Cola Co.,193 S.C. 51, 7 S.E.2d 641 (1940).

In Gantt the plaintiff sued for injuries received from drinking a bottle of Coca-Cola which allegedly contained a poisonous substance known as bluestone, a copper sulfate compound. The bottling company attempted to introduce evidence that it had never had any prior complaints of bluestone in Coca-Cola but the evidence was excluded. This Court reversed, saying:

. . . we think it would have been entirely relevant for the plaintiff in the case at bar to offer evidence, provided of course the facts warranted it, that at about the same time as that of the incident in question some other bottle or bottles of coca-cola put out by the defendant company...