Coogler v. Thompson
| Citation | 286 S.C. 168,332 S.E.2d 215 |
| Decision Date | 25 April 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 0501,0501 |
| Court | Court of Appeals of South Carolina |
| Parties | Francis M. COOGLER, Sr. and Juanita M. Coogler, Appellants, v. Margaret A. THOMPSON, Respondent. . Heard |
Thomas F. McDow, Rock Hill, and Milton E. Hamilton, Chester, for appellants.
Thomas A. McKinney and Thomas A. Givens of McKinney & Givens, Rock Hill, for respondent.
This action arises out of an automobile collision occurring in an intersection controlled by a traffic-control signal. The automobile of the appellants Francis M. Coogler, Sr., and Juanita M. Coogler entered the intersection to the left of the car driven by the respondent Margaret A. Thompson. The jury found in favor of Thompson.
The sole question on appeal is whether the following jury instruction warrants the reversal of the judgment appealed from and the ordering of a new trial:
[Section] 56-5-2310, vehicles approaching and entering an intersection. Where two vehicles approach and enter an intersection from different highways at approximately the same time, the driver of the vehicle on the left shall yield the right of way to the vehicle on the right--this would not be appropriate at this point.
We affirm.
Although the instruction was irrelevant since the collision occurred in an intersection controlled by a traffic-control signal [see S.C.Code of Laws Section 56-5-970 (1976) ], the trial judge corrected his error and rendered it harmless. See 75 Am.Jur.2d Trial Section 922 at 788 (1974). He promptly told the jury the instruction was not then appropriate and did not thereafter tell them it would become so.
When an instruction has been corrected by the court and it appears with reasonable certainty the jury was not misled, it will be presumed on appeal that the jury accepted the correction as the law of the case and applied it. State v. O'Keefe, 45 Haw. 368, 367 P.2d 91 (1961).
In affirming the judgment below, we commend certifying counsel, Thomas F. McDow and Thomas A. McKinney, for their strict adherence to Rule 4 of the Supreme Court Rules. The transcript of record, which consists of only three pages, is a veritable model of compliance.
Some attorneys, we have noticed, feel compelled to print in the transcript of record everything either occurring during or relating to the trial, including banter between the court and counsel, irrelevant remarks, arguments by counsel relating to questions of law not embraced by an exception, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Shields v. South Carolina Dept. of Highways and Public Transp.
...where evidence admitted over objection was later ruled incompetent and the jury was told to disregard it); cf. Coogler v. Thompson, 286 S.C. 168, 332 S.E.2d 215 (Ct.App.1985) (the jury is presumed to have accepted the trial judge's corrected jury The Department argues the trial court commit......
-
McLean v. Godwin Properties, Inc., 0937
...no demand was necessary. This was made clear in the jury charge and a jury is presumed to understand the charge. Coogler v. Thompson, 286 S.C. 168, 332 S.E.2d 215 (Ct.App.1985). The argument a clarifying instruction that a demand is not required if a demand would be futile should have been ......