Brown v. Brown, No. 3827.
| Court | Court of Appeals of South Carolina |
| Writing for the Court | STILWELL, J. |
| Citation | 360 S.C. 7,598 S.E.2d 728 |
| Parties | Woodrow Wilson BROWN, Appellant, v. Joseph Wilson BROWN and Town of Harleyville, Respondents. |
| Decision Date | 21 June 2004 |
| Docket Number | No. 3827. |
360 S.C. 7
598 S.E.2d 728
v.
Joseph Wilson BROWN and Town of Harleyville, Respondents
No. 3827.
Court of Appeals of South Carolina.
Submitted April 6, 2004.
Decided June 21, 2004.
Christy Stephens, of Walterboro, for respondents.
STILWELL, J.:
Woodrow Brown brought this action against Joseph Wilson Brown and the Town of Harleyville alleging negligence by a
FACTS
Officer McKee of the Harleyville Police Department stopped Earl Felder's car after he noticed Felder driving in an erratic manner. Woodrow, his brother Joseph, and another young man were all traveling as passengers in the car. While speaking with Felder, the officer smelled alcohol on his breath and required him to perform several field sobriety tests. Felder performed marginally well indicating that, although he had consumed alcohol, he did not lack control of his functions, nor was he fully impaired. The men insisted they lived at an address less than one mile from the stop site and promised to go straight home. Officer McKee did not issue a citation but determined one of the passengers should drive the car.
When asked by the officer whether any of the passengers could drive, Joseph volunteered. Joseph was allowed to drive only after he satisfactorily completed the same battery of field sobriety tests given to Felder. The men assured the officer they would go straight home.
As an added precaution, Officer McKee followed the car to observe Joseph's driving. The officer testified that Joseph was not driving erratically or unsafely. He finally turned around and resumed his patrol once the car reached the town limit of Harleyville.
Rather than driving home as promised, the men waited until the patrol car was out of sight and reversed course and began driving to a party. Sometime before reaching the party, Joseph ran off the road and into a tree. Woodrow, along with other passengers, suffered minor injuries. When the highway patrol arrived they discovered Joseph was not a licensed driver. He was issued tickets for driving without a license, no insurance, driving too fast for conditions, and failing to wear a safety belt. No citation was issued for DUI.
Two years after the accident, Woodrow brought this action asserting claims for common law negligence against Joseph
DISCUSSION
When we review the trial court's grant of a motion for summary judgment, we apply the same standard that governs the trial courts. Summary judgment is proper when there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. On appeal, we review the evidence and all inferences reasonably drawn from it in the light most favorable to the nonmoving...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Robinson, No. 27463.
...Olson, 495 U.S. at 97 n. 6, 110 S.Ct. 1684 ; Missouri, 361 S.C. at 110, 115, 603 S.E.2d at 595, 597 ; Flowers, 360 S.C. at 6, 598 S.E.2d at 728.9 Rakas, 439 U.S. at 149, 99 S.Ct. 421 (discussing Jones v. United States, 362 U.S. 257, 80 S.Ct. 725, 4 L.Ed.2d 697 (1960), overruled on other gro......
-
Webb v. Lott, C. A. 3:19-2031-JMC-SVH
...and are, therefore, not liable to individuals for damages caused by an escaped inmate under the public duty rule.”); Brown v. Brown, 598 S.E.2d 728, 731 (S.C. Ct. App. 2004) (“Woodrow's complaint also included negligence claims based on Officer McKee's decision to choose Joseph as the repla......
-
Smith v. Koon, C/A No.: 3:19-2155-JMC-SVH
...have done under the circumstances of the situation," when the officer effected a roadside traffic stop on plaintiff); Brown v. Brown, 598 S.E.2d 728, 731 (S.C. Ct. App. 2004) (finding the public duty rule did not bar the plaintiff's negligence claims against police officers for decisions th......
-
Garcia v. Brown, C/A No.: 3:19-1934-JMC-SVH
...the officer's decision to stop the plaintiff created a duty to the plaintiff under the common law, not a statute); Brown v. Brown, 598 S.E.2d 728, 731 (S.C. Ct. App. 2004) (finding the public duty rule did not bar the plaintiff's negligence claims against police officers forPage 24 decision......
-
State v. Robinson, No. 27463.
...Olson, 495 U.S. at 97 n. 6, 110 S.Ct. 1684 ; Missouri, 361 S.C. at 110, 115, 603 S.E.2d at 595, 597 ; Flowers, 360 S.C. at 6, 598 S.E.2d at 728.9 Rakas, 439 U.S. at 149, 99 S.Ct. 421 (discussing Jones v. United States, 362 U.S. 257, 80 S.Ct. 725, 4 L.Ed.2d 697 (1960), overruled on other gro......
-
Webb v. Lott, C. A. 3:19-2031-JMC-SVH
...and are, therefore, not liable to individuals for damages caused by an escaped inmate under the public duty rule.”); Brown v. Brown, 598 S.E.2d 728, 731 (S.C. Ct. App. 2004) (“Woodrow's complaint also included negligence claims based on Officer McKee's decision to choose Joseph as the repla......
-
Smith v. Koon, C/A No.: 3:19-2155-JMC-SVH
...have done under the circumstances of the situation," when the officer effected a roadside traffic stop on plaintiff); Brown v. Brown, 598 S.E.2d 728, 731 (S.C. Ct. App. 2004) (finding the public duty rule did not bar the plaintiff's negligence claims against police officers for decisions th......
-
Garcia v. Brown, C/A No.: 3:19-1934-JMC-SVH
...the officer's decision to stop the plaintiff created a duty to the plaintiff under the common law, not a statute); Brown v. Brown, 598 S.E.2d 728, 731 (S.C. Ct. App. 2004) (finding the public duty rule did not bar the plaintiff's negligence claims against police officers forPage 24 decision......