Harris v. Campbell
| Decision Date | 26 May 1987 |
| Docket Number | No. 0987,0987 |
| Citation | 293 S.C. 85,358 S.E.2d 719 |
| Court | South Carolina Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Norman L. HARRIS, Myrna F. Harris, Doris T. Driggers, H.C. Driggers, Edward Muckenfuss, Jr., Harry W. Nettles, Delores M. Nettles, Ramona E. Rummans, Francis L. Bouchette, Jr., Gayle Bouchette, Frances H. Bath, Norman L. Kinsey, John E. Riley, Marguerite Riley, and all other property owners of Katony Subdivision in the County of Berkeley, State of South Carolina, similarly situated, Respondents. v. Mary Kathleen CAMPBELL, William Harry Miller, David Conrad Miller, and Charles Jack Miller, individually and as devisees under the Last Will and Testaments of Katie M. Miller and A.C. Miller, both deceased, Charles Jack Miller, as Executor of the Estates of Katie M. Miller and A.C. Miller, and Michael A. Kocak, individually and Michael A. Kocak, and Stephen L. Kocak, as partners in Ladson Development Company, and Robin Fiddie, Appellants. . Heard |
Thomas H. Brush and Steven M. Rubinstein, Charleston, for appellants.
James E. Gonzales, North Charleston, for respondents.
This is an appeal from an order of the Circuit Court. The exceptions on appeal assert error by the trial judge in making certain rulings preliminary to trial and during the course of trial. We affirm.
Appellants first argue that the trial judge erred in overruling their motion for summary judgment. The denial of a motion for summary judgment is not appealable, even after trial. Holloman v. McAllister, 289 S.C. 183, 345 S.E.2d 728 (1986).
Appellants also argue that the trial judge erred in overruling their motion for a directed verdict. No such motion appears in the record, and none of the exceptions of appellants assert error on this basis. "[W]e are free to reverse only when error is properly preserved in the trial court and properly presented by an exception on appeal." Bartlett v. Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Co., 290 S.C. 154, 156-57, 348 S.E.2d 530, 531 (Ct.App.1986).
Appellants next argue that the trial judge erred in allowing the testimony of two witnesses over objection that the testimony violated the rule against hearsay. The trial judge ruled that the testimony was admissible under specific exceptions to the rule. Appellants argue in their brief that the testimony is hearsay, but they do not argue that the exceptions relied on by the trial judge are inapplicable. We are obliged to reverse when error is called to our attention, but we are not in the business of figuring out on our own whether error exists. See Duckett v. Payne, 279 S.C. 94, 96, 302 S.E.2d 342, 343 (1983) ().
Appellants also argue that the trial judge erred in allowing the testimony of the same two witnesses in violation of the "Dead man's" statute. Section 19-11-20, Code of Laws of South Carolina, 1976. Neither does the record reflect any objection to the testimony on this ground, nor does the exception of appellants to the ruling of the trial judge assert error on this basis. See Bartlett, supra. Moreover, the testimony is merely cumulative to other evidence which appears in the record. "[R]eversal is not warranted where evidence erroneously admitted is merely cumulative." Campbell v. Paschal, 290 S.C. 1, 13, 347 S.E.2d 892, 900 (Ct.App.1986).
Appellants further argue that the trial judge erred in allowing a third witness "to testify without first-hand knowledge of that which was before the Court." They objected to the testimony at trial on the ground that the witness was being asked to state his opinion regarding a survey which he had not made himself. The witness did not testify in this regard until after the trial judge had declared him qualified to testify as an expert. Of course, an expert witness may state an opinion based on facts not within his firsthand knowledge. E. Cleary, McCormick on Evidence § 14 (3d ed. 1984). Appellants argue in their brief that the ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hundley ex rel. Hundley v. Rite Aid
... ... 277, 500 S.E.2d 198 (Ct.App.1998), cert. denied, March 5, 1999; Halbersberg v. Berry, 302 S.C. 97, 394 S.E.2d 7 (Ct.App.1990) ; Harris v. Campbell, 293 S.C. 85, 358 S.E.2d 719 (Ct.App.1987) ... He may base his opinion on information, whether or not admissible, made available to him ... ...
-
Jamison v. Morris
... ... [684 S.E.2d 170] ... C. Mitchell Brown, William C. Wood, Jr., A. Mattison Bogan and Elizabeth H. Campbell, all of Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough, of Columbia; Rebecca Laffitte, and Robert E. Horner, both of Sowell, Gray, Stepp & Lafitte, all of ... Crane's testimony. First, we find no objection which properly preserved the question of Dr. Crane's qualification as an expert. E.g., Harris v. Campbell, 293 S.C. 85, 358 S.E.2d 719 (Ct.App.1987). Second, we disagree that whether Carlos was impaired by alcohol at the time of the accident ... ...
-
Freeman v. A. & M. Mobile Home Sales, Inc.
...must contain a concise statement of one proposition of law or fact which this Court is asked to review...."); Harris v. Campbell, --- S.C. ---, 358 S.E.2d 719 (Ct.App.1987) (the Court of Appeals can reverse only when the error is properly presented by an exception on Lastly, Commodore quest......
-
Halbersberg v. Berry
... ... An expert witness may state an opinion based on facts not within his firsthand knowledge. Harris v. Campbell, 293 S.C. 85, 358 S.E.2d 719 (Ct.App.1987). He may base his opinion on information, whether or not admissible, made available to him ... ...