Gilland v. Peter's Dry Cleaning Co.
| Decision Date | 03 December 1940 |
| Docket Number | 15172. |
| Citation | 11 S.E.2d 857,195 S.C. 417 |
| Parties | GILLAND v. PETER'S DRY CLEANING CO. |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
Norbert A. Theodore, of Columbia, for appellant.
John Gregg McMaster, Jr., of Columbia, and Albert L. James, Jr. of Darlington, for respondent.
The plaintiff brought suit in the Court of a Magistrate at Columbia against the defendant to recover the sum of $24 for damages alleged to have been done by the defendant to a white mohair dinner coat delivered by the plaintiff to the defendant to be cleaned and pressed by it. The coat was alleged to have been returned to the plaintiff in a discolored and damaged condition. Upon the trial of the case the plaintiff introduced evidence showing the delivery of the coat to the defendant in good condition and its subsequent return in a discolored condition, and thus damaged to such an extent that the plaintiff testified that it was then worth practically nothing. No testimony was offered by the defendant, but a motion was made in its behalf for a directed verdict, which was really for judgment in its favor since the case was being tried by the Magistrate without a jury. The motion was based upon the ground that there was no evidence of negligence on the part of the defendant since the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is not recognized in this State. The Magistrate, however, overruled the defendant's motion and granted judgment in favor of the plaintiff for the sum of $20; and upon appeal to the County Court for Richland County, the judgment of the Magistrate was affirmed by order dated June 14, 1940. Whereupon the case was brought to this Court upon five exceptions raising the single point made by defendant's motion above mentioned.
It is quite true that this Court has refused to adopt the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, although it is the law in many other jurisdictions; that is to say, where the burden rests upon a party to prove negligence we hold that he cannot meet this burden by relying upon the theory that the thing speaks for itself or that the very fact of injury indicates negligence. At the same time, there are certain relationships out of which presumptions arise which may affect the burden of proof. For example, while a servant is required to prove that the master failed to provide a safe place for him to work, this would be sufficient to make out a prima facie case of negligence against his master; but as was held in the case of Weston v. Hillyer, 160 S.C. 541, 159 S.E. 390, 391: "That is not a recognition and application of the doctrine res ipsa loquitur, because it requires that there must be proof of the failure to provide a safe place before the rule applies."
In the case at bar, there was undoubtedly a bailment for the mutual benefit of the parties, that is to say, the delivery of an article by the bailor upon which work was to be performed by the bailee for a consideration. Hence the bailee was required to exercise ordinary care only. Farmers' Union Merc. Co. v. Anderson, 108 S.C. 66, 93 S.E. 422. And while the burden was upon the plaintiff to make out a prima facie case, yet when he proved that he delivered the property in question in good condition and that it was returned to him in an injured condition, he made out such a case, and if the defendant contended that it had used due care, evidence to that effect should have been offered by it.
The authorities on...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Spartanburg County v. Mitchell
...... whether the bailee was negligent. This rule is entirely. reasonable.' Also see Gilland v. Peter's Dry. Cleaning Co., 195 S.C. 417, 11 S.E.2d 857; Carroll. v. S. C. National Bank, 211 ......
-
Carroll v. South Carolina Nat. Bank
...... We have held, as pointed out in Gilland v. Peter's. Dry Cleaning Co., 195 S.C. 417, 11 S.E.2d 857, 858, that. 'there are certain ......
-
Gaskins v. Fowler Gin Co.
......974, 9 L.R.A., N.S.,. 519; Marlow v. [218 S.C. 205] Conway Iron Works, supra;. Gilland v. Peter's Dry Cleaning Co., 195 S.C. 417, 11 S.E.2d 857; Arkwright Mills v. Clearwater Mfg. Co., ......
-
Kelley v. Capital Motors
...case of Fleischman, referring to the authorship of the opinion by Mr. Justice Woods, and reciting its recent application in Gilland v. Peter's Dry Cleaning Co., supra. I not now think that the unnecessary statement in the opinion in the Albergotti case to the effect that verdict may be dire......
-
What's So Different About Bailment?
...28 S.E.2d 836 (1944). [6] See Kelly v. Capital Motors, Inc., 204 S.C. 304, 28 S.E.2d 836 (1944). [7] Gilland v. Peters Dry Cleaning Co., 195 S.C. 417,11 S.E.2d 857, 858 (1940) [8] See Fortner v. Carnes, 258 S.C.455, 460, 189 S.E.2d 24, 26-27 (1972). [9] See Gaskins v. Fowler Gin Co., 218 S.......