Chaney v. Burgess, No. 18380

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
Writing for the CourtLEWIS; TAYLOR
Citation246 S.C. 261,143 S.E.2d 521
PartiesGrover T. CHANEY, Appellant, v. William F. BURGESS, Respondent.
Docket NumberNo. 18380
Decision Date19 July 1965

Page 521

143 S.E.2d 521
246 S.C. 261
Grover T. CHANEY, Appellant,
v.
William F. BURGESS, Respondent.
No. 18380.
Supreme Court of South Carolina.
July 19, 1965.

Page 522

[246 S.C. 263] Henry Hammer, Isadore S. Bernstein, Columbia, Toole & Toole, Aiken, for appellant.

Henry Busbee, Aiken, Allgood & Childs, Augusta, Ga., for respondent.

LEWIS, Justice.

This is an appeal by the plaintiff from a judgment of nonsuit.

On Sunday afternoon, December 22, 1962, the defendant's boat trailer, upon which his boat was fastened, became stuck [246 S.C. 264] in the mud adjacent to a concrete boat ramp at Mills Creek Landing on the Santee Cooper lake in Orangeburg County. He could not pull the trailer from the mud with his automobile and secured the gratuitous assistance of the plaintiff who had a tractor at his cabin nearby. In response to the defendant's request for assistance, the plaintiff drove his tractor to the scene and carried with him a rather large twenty foot log chain to use in pulling. Upon the arrival of the plaintiff with his tractor, the defendant's automobile was still attached to the trailer. On the first of three attempts to pull the boat and trailer from the mud, the plaintiff and the defendant fastened one end of the chain to the front of defendant's automobile and the other to the tractor. This attempt to pull the boat and trailer from the mud failed.

The second attempt was made by detaching the automobile and connecting the tractor directly to the trailer by means of the chain. They were fastened together by the plaintiff and the defendant by tying the center of the chain around the tongue of the trailer and the ends of the chain to the tractor. In securing the ends of the chain, one end was fastened to a bar on the lower part of the tractor and the other to an upper bar apparently located just behind the driver. In fastening the vehicles together, the upper portion of the chain was left with a slack to lift the tongue of the trailer when the pull started. It is inferable that the ends of the chain were thus fastened so that the force of the pull was exerted on the portion of the chain connected to the lower bar. When this method was tried, the wheels of the tractor spun on the wet dirt and the second attempt to move the boat and trailer failed.

On the third and last attempt the plaintiff received the injuries for which recovery is now sought. The trailer was sitting immediately adjacent to a concrete boat ramp which was constructed so that it was inclined toward the water. In order to get more traction for the third attempt, the ends of the chain were unfastened and the tractor moved onto the ramp. When the tractor was thus positioned, the [246 S.C. 265] plaintiff got off to help refasten the ends of the chain. As he did so, the tractor started to roll backwards and he remounted to secure the brakes. While plaintiff was holding the brakes to insure that the tractor would not roll backwards, the defendant undertook to tie the chains to the tractor as they had been fastened on the second attempt to pull the trailer, that is, one end to the lower bar and the other to the upper bar. When the defendant finished, he stepped back and directed the plaintiff 'to go ahead.' Whereupon the plaintiff eased the tractor forward and tightened the chain. It appeared that the chain was holding, so plaintiff accelerated the motor. When he did, the bottom end of the chain...

To continue reading

Request your trial
29 practice notes
  • Garrison v. Target Corp., Appellate Case No. 2017-000267
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • January 15, 2020
    ...inferences to be drawn from the evidence are in doubt, the case should be submitted to the jury." Id. (quoting Chaney v. Burgess , 246 S.C. 261, 266, 143 S.E.2d 521, 523 (1965) )."In considering a JNOV, the trial judge is concerned with the existence of evidence, not its weight.&q......
  • Jolly v. Gen. Elec. Co., 5858
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • September 1, 2021
    ...the inferences to be drawn from the evidence are in doubt, the case should be submitted to the jury." Id. (quoting Chaney v. Burgess, 246 S.C. 261, 266, 143 S.E.2d 521, 523 (1965)). "In considering a JNOV, the [circuit court] is concerned with the existence of evidence, not its we......
  • Sides v. St. Anthony's Medical Center, No. SC 88948.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • August 5, 2008
    ...courts have expressly ruled ... that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur does not apply in a malpractice suit."), Chaney v. Burgess, 246 S.C. 261, 143 S.E.2d 521, 523 (1965) ("the so-called doctrine of res ipsa loquitur does not apply in this In the remaining ten states (Delaware, H......
  • Gastineau v. Murphy, No. 2517
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • May 7, 1996
    ...governing the determination of the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence to establish liability were thus stated in Chaney v. Burgess, 246 S.C. 261, 143 S.E.2d 521 "While our decisions uniformly state that the so called doctrine of res ipsa loquitur does not apply in this State, they ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
29 cases
  • Garrison v. Target Corp., Appellate Case No. 2017-000267
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • January 15, 2020
    ...inferences to be drawn from the evidence are in doubt, the case should be submitted to the jury." Id. (quoting Chaney v. Burgess , 246 S.C. 261, 266, 143 S.E.2d 521, 523 (1965) )."In considering a JNOV, the trial judge is concerned with the existence of evidence, not its weight.&q......
  • Jolly v. Gen. Elec. Co., 5858
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • September 1, 2021
    ...the inferences to be drawn from the evidence are in doubt, the case should be submitted to the jury." Id. (quoting Chaney v. Burgess, 246 S.C. 261, 266, 143 S.E.2d 521, 523 (1965)). "In considering a JNOV, the [circuit court] is concerned with the existence of evidence, not its we......
  • Sides v. St. Anthony's Medical Center, No. SC 88948.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • August 5, 2008
    ...courts have expressly ruled ... that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur does not apply in a malpractice suit."), Chaney v. Burgess, 246 S.C. 261, 143 S.E.2d 521, 523 (1965) ("the so-called doctrine of res ipsa loquitur does not apply in this In the remaining ten states (Delaware, H......
  • Gastineau v. Murphy, No. 2517
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • May 7, 1996
    ...governing the determination of the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence to establish liability were thus stated in Chaney v. Burgess, 246 S.C. 261, 143 S.E.2d 521 "While our decisions uniformly state that the so called doctrine of res ipsa loquitur does not apply in this State, they ......
  • 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