Hammond v. Scott, 20356
| Decision Date | 04 February 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 20356,20356 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | Robert HAMMOND, Jr., by Robert L. Hammond, his guardian ad litem, Appellant, v. Anthony SCOTT, a minor, and Stephen W. Dover, Defendants, of whom StephensonW. Dover is, Respondent. Robert L. HAMMOND, Appellant, v. Anthony SCOTT, a minor, and Stephenson W. Dover, Defendants, of whom StephenW. Dover is, Respondent. |
Luther M. Lee and Kenneth M. Suggs, Columbia, for appellants.
Donald V. Richardson, III, and Charles E. Carpenter, Jr., Richardson, Plowden, Grier & Howser, Columbia, for respondent.
This action arises out of an incident in which plaintiff Robert Hammond, Jr. (Bobby), was struck in the eye by a nail thrown by Anthony Scott (Anthony), during a woodworking class taught by defendant Stephen W. Dover (the Teacher) at Hopkins Junior High School. It is a tort action, brought by Bobby against both Anthony and the Teacher, based on alleged negligence, willfulness and wantonness.
After the pleadings had been filed and depositions taken, defendant Teacher moved for summary judgment on the ground that he was 'guilty of no actionable negligence and breached no legal obligation to the plaintiffs; said motion to be based upon the pleadings, depositions, affidavits, and any other evidence that may be received by the court.' The lower court granted summary judgment to the Teacher. This appeal followed.
Upon a consideration of the motion, the lower court had before it the depositions of the plaintiff, Bobby, of the defendant, Anthony, and of the defendant Teacher, and also an affidavit by J. E. Brown, principal of the high school, regarding disciplinary procedures. Counsel for both Bobby and the Teacher were, of course, at liberty to present any other affidavits and to make any showing which might be helpful to the court in determining whether there was or was not a genuine issue of material fact, as contemplated by our Summary Judgment Rule, No. 44. The depositions were full and exhaustive. If any other potential witness has any different relevant testimony, the same has not been pointed out to the Court.
The following is a summary of the facts as developed in the lower court:
On November 19, 1975, the Teacher was conducting a woodworking shop class in the school. The classroom was not a conventional one, but had work benches, tools, etc. Bobby was standing approximately two feet from a large trash barrel talking with another student. As Bobby turned his head, he was struck in the eye by a nail aimed at the trash barrel and thrown underhandedly by Anthony. Anthony had picked the nail up off the floor and thrown it a distance of some 15 or 20 feet in the direction of the trash barrel. Anthony said that he did not see Bobby at the time the nail was thrown. There were no ill feelings between the two, and Bobby stated that the occurrence was 'an accident.' At the time of the incident, the Teacher was in the 'projects' room adjacent to the woodworking shop area. At the moment, he was standing with his back to the shop area, assisting other students in putting their work projects away. The Teacher did not know of the incident until after it occurred.
It appears that on previous occasions some of the students had thrown objects into the trash barrel from a few feet away. The practice was not sanctioned by the Teacher and any student caught throwing objects into the trash barrel would be called down. All of the students knew that this was a forbidden act and Anthony had been admonished once before. The Teacher had instructed the students to drop items into the trash barrel rather than to throw them at it. The negligence alleged against the Teacher is as follows:
'(a) In failing to properly supervise his students;
'(b) In failing to discipline his students to prevent them from throwing objects in the classroom;
'(c) In failing to remove Defendant, Anthony Scott, from the classroom when his misbehavior became dangerous to others;
'(d) In failing to warn his students of the dangers of throwing objects in the classroom.'
We agree with the lower court, which found that there was no genuine issue as to any material fact on the negligence issue; and affirm. The showing submitted would necessitate the granting of a directed verdict and there is no showing that other evidence would be available.
While the question of teacher liability has apparently never been before this Court, there is a wealth of authority elsewhere dealing with the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Strother v. Lexington County Recreation Com'n
...and inferences arising in and from the evidence must be construed most Id. at 610, 230 S.E.2d at 448. See also Hammond v. Scott, 268 S.C. 137, 232 S.E.2d 336 (1977); Gardner v. Campbell, 257 S.C. 209, 184 S.E.2d 700 strongly against the movant for summary judgment. Title Insurance Company v......
-
Marquez v. Gomez, No. 11049
...of the services of volunteers in a youth sports program to the community in which they participate." Id. at 617. In Hammond v. Scott, 268 S.C. 137, 232 S.E.2d 336 (1977), a student was struck in the eye by a nail thrown by another student during their woodworking class. In upholding summary......
-
Etheredge v. Richland School Dist. I
...their book bags, or lockers, all of which was necessary to provide proper security. The School District relies on Hammond v. Scott, 268 S.C. 137, 232 S.E.2d 336 (1977), as the "most telling case" in support of its assertion the trial court properly granted summary judgment to the School Dis......
-
District of Columbia v. Cassidy
...these facts, we are not convinced that appellant has demonstrated a breach of duty on the part of the District. See Hammond v. Scott, 268 S.C. 137, 232 S.E.2d 336, 338 (1977). Even assuming, without deciding, that appellees have shown that the District breached a duty, they have failed to s......