Davis v. Littlefield

• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: FRASER, J.
• Citation: Davis v. Littlefield, 81 S.E. 487, 97 S.C. 171 (S.C. 1914)
• Decision Date: 21 April 1914
• Parties: DAVIS v. LITTLEFIELD.

81 S.E. 487

97 S.C. 171

DAVIS v. LITTLEFIELD.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

April 21, 1914

Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Aiken County; Geo. W Gage, Judge.

Action by Alonzo Davis against A. S. Littlefield and another. From a judgment for plaintiff against the defendant named, he appeals. Affirmed.

Hydrick J., dissenting in part.

The case was stated in appellant's brief as follows:

"Mr. A. S. Littlefield, the defendant appellant herein who is a resident of Chicago, rented a house in Aiken for the winter season of 1911-12, and established his family there. Mr. Littlefield was much of the time in Chicago, where he was engaged in business. Mrs. Littlefield, who was in ill health, was in Aiken during the entire winter. Mr Randolph S. Littlefield, a son, then of the age of 19, was also in Aiken, and during the Christmas holidays two other sons spent their time there. Mr. Littlefield provided a Pearce Arrow automobile, as he testified, 'for the health and pleasure' of his family. Mr. Randolph Littlefield ran this car most of the time. When the other sons were in Aiken during the Christmas holidays, they ran the car when they pleased. Mr. Randolph Littlefield registered the car in the office of the clerk of the court of Aiken county in the name of his father, A. S. Littlefield, who was the owner thereof. Randolph Littlefield had the permission of the father to use the machine for his pleasure when he saw fit; and, whenever it was the desire of Mrs. Littlefield to use the machine either Randolph Littlefield or the other sons, when they were in Aiken, would run the car for her.

On the 13th day of February, 1912, while A. S. Littlefield, the father, was in Chicago, Randolph Littlefield, having some friends stopping at the tourist hotel in Aiken, the Park-in-the-Pines, took the car out and started to the Park-in-the-Pines to get these friends to take them to ride; no one accompanied him. His mother was at home, and it was not her intention to take part in this trip in any manner.

While Randolph Littlefield was going to the Park-in-the-Pines to get these friends, whom he intended to take to ride, for his own personal pleasure and theirs, he encountered the plaintiff, Alonzo Davis, who was driving a pair of mules. The mules became frightened. Exactly what occurred between Davis and Randolph Littlefield is in dispute. As a result of the occurrence, the team ran away, and Davis was thrown out and alleges that he was injured. He brought suit against A. S. Littlefield and Randolph S. Littlefield jointly, alleging, in effect, that Randolph Littlefield occupied the position of servant to his father in running the machine, and that both father and son were responsible for his injury.

The case was tried before Judge Gage and a jury in November, 1913, and the jury rendered a verdict against A. S. Littlefield alone for the sum of $475. After the verdict, a motion for a new trial was made, both on the ground that the verdict against A. S. Littlefield was unsustainable under the facts and the law of the case, and on the ground of misconduct on the part of one of the jurors. The facts in connection with the latter ground will hereafter be stated. The motion was refused and judgment entered up, from which this appeal is taken.

Law Points.

Before discussing what we conceive to be the law of this case, there are two questions which we desire to bring to the court's attention by way of elimination.

I. The alleged accident, upon which this suit is based, occurred on February 13, 1912. The Legislature on February 16, 1912, passed an act (which became law some days later, and a considerable time after the date of the accident in question) by which a party injured in this state, in an automobile accident, was given the right to attach the car which caused the injury. We desire particularly to call the court's attention to the fact that this act does not purport, in any manner, to create a new liability or to change the existing rules of law, which we shall hereafter contend govern this case, but merely provides a new right of attachment in addition to the existing rights under the attachment statutes. Should it in any manner be contended that this statute creates, or purports to create, a new liability, the facts of its passage after the date of the accident in question would dispose of this new statute as affecting the present case. We might also add that if the statute had been in existence on the 13th day of February, 1912, and should a contention be made that it purports to create a new liability, and to make the owner of the car responsible for the act of a third party, who did not bear to the owner the relationship of servant, and from whose act the owner could not be held responsible under the existing rules of law, we would then submit that such a statute would be unconstitutional as arbitrarily taking property without due process of law, and as being unwarranted class legislation.

II. Another consideration that should be eliminated is the possible contention that A. S. Littlefield is liable, because he placed within the reach of his minor son an alleged dangerous instrumentality, to wit, an automobile. The proof in the case showed that the minor son, Randolph, was an expert in the running of automobiles; but this entire matter may be eliminated from the case for the very simple reason that no allegation to fit such contention appears in the complaint, and such an idea was in no manner made the test of A. S. Littlefield's responsibility by the presiding judge in his charge."

Randolph is called "Raymond" in the "case."

Davis & Croft and Hendersons, all of...