Hatfield v. Atlas Enterprises, Inc.
| Decision Date | 30 January 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 21137,21137 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | Carlien HATFIELD, a mentally incompetent person, by her Guardian Ad Litem, Norma B. Hatfield, Appellant, v. ATLAS ENTERPRISES, INC., Longhorn Manufacturing Company, and the Tri-State Manufacturing Company, Respondents. |
Terrell L. Glenn of McNair, Glenn, Konduros, Corley, Singletary, Porter & Dibble, Columbia, and Daniel A. Speights, Hampton, for appellant.
Ellis M. Johnston, II, Greenville, for respondent Atlas Enterprises, Inc., et al.
Pledger M. Bishop, Jr., Charleston, for respondent The Tri-State Mfg. Co.
Appellant Carlien Hatfield, by her guardian ad litem, Norma B. Hatfield, commenced this products liability action against respondents, Atlas Enterprises, Inc., Longhorn Manufacturing Company and Tri-State Manufacturing Company, for personal injuries resulting from a fireworks fire. The trial court sustained respondents' demurrer to appellant's strict liability cause of action. We affirm.
On December 17, 1970, appellant was injured at her father's fireworks store when a spark allegedly ignited fireworks manufactured and distributed by respondents. She brought suit against respondents on the theories of negligence, strict liability and breach of warranty. Respondents' demurrer to the second cause of action was sustained on the basis South Carolina did not recognize the doctrine of strict liability in tort at the time appellant's cause of action arose.
Appellant asserts the trial court erred in concluding the doctrine of strict liability in tort was not included in the common law of this State at the time of her injury. We disagree.
In Lane v. Trenholm Building Company, 267 S.C. 497, 229 S.E.2d 728 (1976), we noted the General Assembly had "recognized the clear drift of the common law in this State when it codified Restatement of Torts (2) Section 402A, which imposes strict liability in tort upon the suppliers of defective products, S.C.Code § 66-371, et seq." 267 S.C. at 504, n. 3, 229 S.E.2d at 731 n. 3. This passage clearly indicates the doctrine of strict liability in tort, imposed as a result of a product's defective condition, did not emerge until Code § 15-73-10 § 15-73-30 (1976) were enacted. Act No. 1184 (1974) S.C. Acts and Joint Resolutions 2782. See 27 S.C.L.R. 803 (1976). We hold strict liability in tort was not recognized the common law of this State at the time of appellant's alleged injury.
Appellant next asserts it was error to conclude that Code § 15-73-10 § 15-73-30, Supra should not be applied retrospectively. The reasoning expressed in Hyder v. Jones, 271 S.C. 85, 87-89, 245 S.E.2d 123 (1978) is dispositive of this issue and supports the trial court's decision that these provisions operate prospectively only. Accord, General Motors Corporation v. Tate, 257 Ark. 347, 516 S.W.2d 602 (Ark.1974); cf. Wansor v. Hantscho, Inc., 252 S.E.2d 623 (Ga.1979); Contra, Cooley v. Salopian Industries, Ltd., 383 F.Supp. 1114 (D.S.C.1974).
Appellant finally contends the trial court erred in holding respondents were not strictly liable...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Barnwell v. Barber-Colman Co.
...prior to enactment of 1974 Act No. 1184. 1 Schall v. Sturm, Ruger Co., 278 S.C. 646, 300 S.E.2d 735 (1983); Hatfield v. Atlas Enterprises, Inc., 274 S.C. 247, 262 S.E.2d 900 (1980). The Act incorporated almost verbatim the definition of strict liability from § 402A of the Restatement (Secon......
-
Ravan v. Greenville County
...this state have not held that the disposal of toxic chemicals is an abnormally dangerous activity. See Hatfield v. Atlas Enterprises, Inc., 274 S.C. 247, 249, 262 S.E.2d 900, 901 (1980) (no error in trial court's refusal to charge handling of fireworks was an abnormally dangerous activity w......
-
Bragg v. Hi-Ranger, Inc.
...of Torts § 402A as §§ 15-73-10, -20, and -30, S.C.Code Ann. (1976), our Defective Products Act. 8 See Hatfield v. Atlas Enterprises, Inc., 274 S.C. 247, 262 S.E.2d 900 (1980) (although General Assembly had recognized the clear drift of the common law in this State when it codified Restateme......
-
Snow v. City of Columbia
...South Carolina, 1976, as amended. The common law of this State does not recognize strict product liability. Hatfield v. Atlas Enterprises, Inc., 274 S.C. 247, 262 S.E.2d 900 (1980). For a discussion of the origins of the modern doctrine of products liability see G. Priest, The Invention of ......