Dennis v. D.C. Electric St. Ry. L. & P. Co
| Decision Date | 18 December 1912 |
| Citation | 76 S.E. 711,93 S.C. 295 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | DENNIS. v. COLUMBIA ELECTRIC ST. RY. L. & P. CO. |
1. Evidence (§ 106*)—Admission of Character Evidence—Injured Passenger.
Where, in a passenger's action for injuries from being wrongfully ejected, defendant, neither by cross-examination, nor by its evidence of plaintiff's intoxication, attacked his reputation, it was error to permit him to prove his good reputation as a peaceable, law-abiding citizen.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Evidence, Cent. Dig. §§ 177-187; Dec. Dig. § 106.*]
2. Appeal and Error (§ 1052*)—Harmless Error—Admission of Evidence.
The admission of evidence of plaintiff's good character was harmless, where, under the evidence properly admitted, no fair jury could have failed to find for plaintiff, and the verdict was not excessive.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. §§ 4171-4177; Dec. Dig. § 1052.*]
3. Carriers (§ 384*)—Injured Passenger— Ejection by Fellow Passenger—Instruction.
Where, in a passenger's action for injuries from being ejected from an electric car by a fellow passenger, the undisputed evidence was that the conductor saw plaintiff thrown off, if he did not assist in doing it, and saw him thereafter following the car for some distance, and did not attempt to stop to let him on again, the court did not err in refusing to modify plaintiff's request of instruction that a common carrier may be held for damages, unless it exercises the highest degree of care to protect its passengers from the violence of other passengers, by adding thereto that the rule stated applies only when the carrier knows of the danger, or of facts from which the danger may be reasonably anticipated.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Carriers, Cent. Dig. §§ 1497-1500; Dec. Dig. § 384.*]
Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Richland County; John G. Wilson, Judge.
"To be officially reported."
Action by George W. Dennis against the Columbia Electric Street Railway, Light & Power Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Elliott & Herbert, of Columbia, for appellant.
Frank G. Tompkins, of Columbia, for respondent.
HYDRICK, J. Plaintiff recovered judgment for $1,000 damages for his wrongful ejection from one of defendant's cars and for personal injuries sustained by him. in consequence of his having been thrown from the car while it was in motion.
Besides denying material allegations of the complaint, the defense was that "plaintiff's conduct was unruly, disorderly, and disrespectful, and that he refused to obey the instructions of the conductor, and insisted on ringing up fares, whereupon several men who were in the car ejected him, but that he was not ejected in such manner as to injure him."
Defendant's attorney asked plaintiff, on his cross-examination, if he did not drink, if he was not boisterous when drinking, and if he did not get shot while he was drunk, all of which plaintiff denied. Defendant also undertook to prove by one or more witnesses that plaintiff was intoxicated at a certain time indicated, and that he appeared to be under the influence of liquor when he was ejected.
On the reply the plaintiff was allowed to introduce testimony to prove his good reputation as a peaceable, law-abiding citizen, and the admission of that testimony constitutes the first ground of appeal.
In McKenzie v. Allen, 3 Strob. 546, the court said: "It is a well-settled rule that, as evidence is to be confined to the point in issue, the character of either party cannot be inquired into, in a civil suit, unless it is put in issue by the nature of the proceeding itself." To the same effect is Chapman v. Cooley, 12 Rich. 654, the syllabus of which reads as follows: Of course, the general principle stated above does not apply to the class of cases mentioned in Smith v. Lafar, 67 S. C. 491, 46 S. E. 332, where the character of a party is put in issue by the nature of the proceeding itself.
Neither by the cross-examination, nor by the evidence of intoxication offered by defendant, was there any direct attack made upon plaintiff's reputation as a peaceable, law-abiding citizen. Therefore, under the authorities cited, we must hold that it was error to admit the evidence complained of. But, for the reason stated at the end of this opinion, we do not think the error calls for a reversal of the judgment.
Appellant's next assignment of error is that the court charged plaintiff's fourth request, to wit: "That a common carrier is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Danelly
... ... confession of guilt. Mfg. Co. v. Casualty Co., 78 ... S.C. 81, 58 S.E. 969; Dennis v. Street Ry., 93 S.C ... 295, 76 S.E. 711 ... In the ... case of the State ... ...
-
Boyle v. Smith.
...v. Temple, 5 Cir., 176 F. 67, 27 L.R.A.,N.S., 1114. 11Hignite v. Nantz, 254 Ky. 214, 71 S.W.2d 442; Dennis v. Columbia Electric St. Ry., Light & Power Co., 93 S.C. 295, 76 S.E. 711. 12Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78, 55 S.Ct. 629, 631, 79 L.Ed. 1314; Haywood v. United States, 7 Cir., 2......
-
Mann v. Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co.
... ... should be regarded not prejudicial." ... See, ... also, Dennis v. Street Railway, 93 S.C. 299, ... ...
-
Lyles v. Fellers
...set aside the judgment. Lowe v. Ottaray Mills, 93 S.C. 420, 77 S.E. 135; Mfg. Co. v. Cas. Co., 78 S.C. 81, 58 S.E. 969; Dennis v. Street Ry., 93 S.C. 295, 76 S.E. 711; Settlemeyer v. So. Ry., 97 S.C. 85, 81 S.E. Thornton v. Spartan Mills, 98 S.C. 262, 82 S.E. 414. His honor, Judge Whaley, m......