Hodge v. Myers, No. 19193
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina |
| Writing for the Court | LITTLEJOHN; MOSS |
| Citation | 255 S.C. 542,180 S.E.2d 203 |
| Parties | Opal HODGE, Respondent, v. George C. MYERS, Edith Myers, James D. Poag and Elmer Selmon as Executors andTrustees under the Will of James S. Myers, d/b/a Kash & Karry, Appellants. |
| Docket Number | No. 19193 |
| Decision Date | 25 March 1971 |
Page 203
v.
George C. MYERS, Edith Myers, James D. Poag and Elmer Selmon
as Executors andTrustees under the Will of James
S. Myers, d/b/a Kash & Karry, Appellants.
[255 S.C. 543]
Page 204
James H. Watson, of Leatherwood, Walker, Todd & Mann, Greenville, for appellants.John J. McKay, Jr., of [255 S.C. 544] Rainey, Fant & McKay, Thomas W. Greene, Greenville, for respondent.
LITTLEJOHN, Justice.
This action was instituted to recover damages for personal injuries sustained when the plaintiff fell in the store of the defendants. The complaint alleges that the plaintiff fell over an object or substance placed on the floor by the defendants or which was there by reason of the manner in which the defendants operated the business.
The answer is a general denial and a plea of contributory negligence, recklessness, wilfulness and wantonness on the part of the plaintiff.
On September 29, 1970, plaintiff's counsel served Requests for Admissions under Rule 89 of the circuit court. On October 5 defendants' counsel served Objections to the Requests. The case was scheduled for trial at a term of court commencing October 12, 1970. The Requests for Admissions and Objections thereto came to be heard before the Honorable Louis Rosen, presiding judge, on October 12 at a pretrial conference as provided for in Rule 43. As a result of the pretrial conference Judge Rosen issued his order directing both the plaintiff and the defendants to provide the other with a list of the names and addresses of all persons known or reasonably believed to have knowledge or information concerning the fall and injuries in question. The plaintiff [255 S.C. 545] complied with the order; the defendants refused to comply and have appealed.
Page 205
Several exceptions appear in the record. In defendants' brief it is conceded that only one question is really involved and that is stated as follows:
'Does the Trial Court Have Authority to Direct a Party to Divulge the Names and Addressed of Any Person Known By The Party or Reasonably Believed by It, to Have Information Concerning an Accident Giving Rise to Litigation?'
Defendants argue that a rule permitting interrogatories has not been adopted by our State court, and that absent such rule, the trial judge erred in directing the litigants to exchange lists of witnesses.
It is clear that the trial judge fully recognized that there does not exist in this State a rule permitting interrogatories, and that he proceeded under Rule 43 instead. We quote from his order:
'Our State Court rules do not provide for interrogatories, but the entire thrust of these rules is for full and fair discovery to prevent a trial from becoming a guessing game or one of surprise for either party. It is the opinion of this Court...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Moura v. Randall, No. 240
...that evidence of viciousness by an animal subsequent to an accident is admitted to prove vicious tendencies on an earlier date." Id. 180 S.E.2d at 203. See also Sandoval v. Birx, 767 P.2d 759 (Colo.Ct.App.1988) (concluding that an animal control officer who observed the dog on a daily basis......
-
In re Mt. Hawley Insurance Company, Appellate Case No. 2018-001170
...discovery. Such would, of course, increase the likelihood of fair trial." (alteration in original) (quoting 427 S.C. 167 Hodge v. Myers , 255 S.C. 542, 548, 180 S.E.2d 203, 206 (1971) )). As a result, parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter that is not privileged so long as it is ......
-
Samples v. Mitchell, No. 2747
...one of surprise for either party." State Highway Dep't v. Booker, 260 S.C. 245, 252, 195 S.E.2d 615, 619 (1973) (quoting Hodge v. Myers, 255 S.C. 542, 545, 180 S.E.2d 203, 205 (1971)). Essentially, the rights of discovery [329 S.C. 114] provided by the rules give the trial lawyer the means ......
-
Scott v. Greenville Housing Authority, No. 3616.
...a guessing game or one of ambush for either party. See State Hwy. Dep't v. Booker, 260 S.C. 245, 195 S.E.2d 615 (1973); Hodge v. Myers, 255 S.C. 542, 180 S.E.2d 203 (1971). Essentially, the rights of discovery articulated by the rules give the attorney the means to prepare for Discovery is ......
-
Moura v. Randall, No. 240
...that evidence of viciousness by an animal subsequent to an accident is admitted to prove vicious tendencies on an earlier date." Id. 180 S.E.2d at 203. See also Sandoval v. Birx, 767 P.2d 759 (Colo.Ct.App.1988) (concluding that an animal control officer who observed the dog on a daily basis......
-
In re Mt. Hawley Insurance Company, Appellate Case No. 2018-001170
...discovery. Such would, of course, increase the likelihood of fair trial." (alteration in original) (quoting 427 S.C. 167 Hodge v. Myers , 255 S.C. 542, 548, 180 S.E.2d 203, 206 (1971) )). As a result, parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter that is not privileged so long as it is ......
-
Samples v. Mitchell, No. 2747
...one of surprise for either party." State Highway Dep't v. Booker, 260 S.C. 245, 252, 195 S.E.2d 615, 619 (1973) (quoting Hodge v. Myers, 255 S.C. 542, 545, 180 S.E.2d 203, 205 (1971)). Essentially, the rights of discovery [329 S.C. 114] provided by the rules give the trial lawyer the means ......
-
Scott v. Greenville Housing Authority, No. 3616.
...a guessing game or one of ambush for either party. See State Hwy. Dep't v. Booker, 260 S.C. 245, 195 S.E.2d 615 (1973); Hodge v. Myers, 255 S.C. 542, 180 S.E.2d 203 (1971). Essentially, the rights of discovery articulated by the rules give the attorney the means to prepare for Discovery is ......