Eaddy v. Jackson Beauty Supply Co.
| Decision Date | 13 May 1964 |
| Docket Number | No. 18213,18213 |
| Citation | 244 S.C. 256,136 S.E.2d 297 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | McCray EADDY, Appellant, v. JACKSON BEAUTY SUPPLY COMPANY, Inc., Respondent. |
McEachin, Townsend & Zeigler, Florence, for appellant.
Wright, Scott, Blackwell & Powers, Florence, for respondent.
In this action for damages for personal injuries, allegedly caused by the negligence of an agent of the corporate defendant in the operation of a motor vehicle in the scope and course of his employment, the jury found a verdict for the defendant and plaintiff has appealed.
The complaint contained appropriate allegations to charge the defendant with liability under the doctrine of respondeat superior. The first defense of the answer denied these allegations. Subsequent defenses admitted that the defendant's truck was being driven by its employee on the occasion in question, but did not admit that the employee was acting in the scope and course of his employment.
The first and second exceptions charge error in the refusal of the court to give certain instructions which were requested by the plaintiff. The factual basis on which these exceptions rest is set forth in the agreed statement, from which we quote.
* * *'
Although, as stated by the trial judge in his order refusing a new trial, there was no conflict in the testimony as to agency and no issue of fact thereabout, the legal principle of respondeat superior lay at the foundation of plaintiff's claimed right to recover. It was a fundamental part of the applicable law which the judge was required to declare in his instructions to the jury. 'Judges shall not charge juries in respect to matters of facts, but shall declare the law.' Constitution of South Carolina, Article 5, Section 26.
The opinion in Norris v. Clinkscales, 47 S.C. 488, 25 S.E. 797, which has been referred to as a legal classic, compares the foregoing section with Article IV, Section 26, Constitution of 1868 and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fairchild v. S.C. Dep't of Transp.
...guide it.” Collins–Plass Thayer Co. v. Hewlett, 109 S.C. 245, 253–54, 95 S.E. 510, 513 (1918), cited in Eaddy v. Jackson Beauty Supply Co., 244 S.C. 256, 259, 136 S.E.2d 297, 298 (1964). To warrant reversal, the refusal to give a requested jury charge must be both erroneous and prejudicial.......
-
Fairchild v. South Carolina Dep't of Transp.
...guide it." Collins-Plass Thayer Co. v. Hewlett, 109 S.C. 245, 253-54, 95 S.E. 510, 513 (1918), cited in Eaddy v. Jackson Beauty Supply Co., 244 S.C. 256, 259, 136 S.E.2d 297, 298 (1964). To warrant reversal, the refusal to give a requested jury charge must be both erroneous and prejudicial.......
-
Brown v. Smalls
...request constitutes reversible error. Baker v. Weaver, 279 S.C. 479, 309 S.E.2d 770 (Ct.App.1983) (citing Eaddy v. Jackson Beauty Supply Co., 244 S.C. 256, 136 S.E.2d 297 (1964)). Moreover, when general instructions to the jury are insufficient to enable the jury to understand fully the law......
-
Mack v. Riley
...for conversion. The trial judge is required to declare the law to the jury. S.C. Const., Art. 5, Section 17; Eaddy v. Jackson Beauty Supply Co., 244 S.C. 256, 136 S.E.2d 297 (1964). It is error to leave the jury without instructions as to the proper measure of damages to be used in arriving......