Holden v. Beach, 17073
| Decision Date | 11 October 1955 |
| Docket Number | No. 17073,17073 |
| Citation | 89 S.E.2d 433,228 S.C. 234 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | Ann HOLDEN, a Minor, by her Guardian ad litem, Ida C. Workman, Appellant, v. Harry M. BEACH, Respondent. Ida C. WORKMAN, Appellant, v. Harry M. BEACH, Respondent. |
Williams & Parler, Lancaster, J. D. Parler, St. George, Murchison & West, Camden, for appellants.
Nelson, Mullins & Grier, Columbia, J. Rueben Long, Conway, for respondents.
This appeal arises out of an Order of the Honorable G. Badger Baker refusing to transfer the place of trial from Horry County to Kershaw County, and this decision is controlling in both cases by agreement of counsel.
Action was brought in Kershaw County against respondent, a resident of Horry County, for injuries received by a minor, Ann Holden; said injuries were allegedly brought about through the negligent handling of a mechanical ride owned by respondent and operated at Myrtle Beach in Horry County, South Carolina. Ida C. Workman, mother and guardian of Ann Holden, seeks to recover for medical expenses and loss of services, while the minor, Ann Holden, seeks damages for her injuries, pain and suffering, and future medical expenses. Upon motion of respondent (defendant), the cases were transferred to the County of his residence (Horry) for trial. Appellants thereafter moved before Honorable G. Badger Baker for an order transferring the cases back to Kershaw County upon the grounds that the convenience of witnesses and the ends of justice would be promoted thereby. This motion was resisted by respondent; and affidavits to support their respective positions were submitted, it being agreed between counsel that the affidavits should apply in both cases. The motion was refused and appellants now appeal contending that the hearing Judge abused his discretion in refusing to change the venue to Kershaw County upon the grounds that (1) the convenience of witnesses would best be served; (2) that the ends of justice would be promoted thereby.
Appellants, in order to prevail, must make a prima facie showing that both the convenience of witnesses and the ends of justice will be promoted by the change. Utsey v. Charleston, etc., R. Co., 38 S.C. 399, 17 S.E. 141; Simmons v. Cohen, S.C., 88 S.E.2d 679. Motions of this character are addressed to the discretion of the lower Court, and its ruling on such matters will not be disturbed unless it appears from the facts presented that the Court committed a manifest abuse of a sound judicial discretion. Patterson v. Charleston & W. C. R. Co., 190 S.C. 66, 1 S.E.2d 920; Wilson v. Southern Furniture Co., 224 S.C. 281, 78 S.E.2d 890; Griffin v. Owens, 171 S.C. 276, 172 S.E. 221; Wade v. Southern R. Co., 186 S.C. 265, 195 S.E. 560; Sample v. Bedenbaugh, 158 S.C. 496, 155 S.E. 828; Simmons v. Cohen, supra.
On or about April 24, 1954, appellant, Ann Holden, along with her fiance, purchased a ticket which entitled her to ride on a machine known as the 'Rollo-Plane' or 'Bullet,' which was being operated by respondent at Myrtle Beach, South Carolina. The machine operated clockwise, carrying the passengers up and over in a circular motion. The complaint alleges that the machine was operated at a reckless and unusually fast rate of speed causing appellant to be thrown out of her seat and against the safety strap which was improperly adjusted causing it to give and upon completion of the first revolution threw her backward upon the seat fracturing several of the thoracic and lumbar vertebrae of the spine, resulting in appellant, Holden, being paralyzed in both legs with no control of her bowels or kidneys; that she was hospitalized for a period of more than three months and still suffers from such injuries requiring continuous medical and nursing care.
Sometime after the incident complained of but before the hearing of the motion, appellant, Holden, a resident of Kershaw, married D. Jennings Lucas, Jr., a resident of Richland County. The other appellant, Mrs. Ida C. Workman, Guardian ad Litem for appellant, Ann Holden, is a resident of Kershaw County. Other witnesses to be offered by appellants will be Dr. John M. Brewer of Kershaw, Dr. A. T. Moore of Columbia, Dr. J. W. Brunson of Camden, Ann Zemp of Camden, and appellant's husband who was with her at the time of injury. Also, Dr. J. B. Woodhall, who is connected with Duke Hospital at Durham, North Carolina, may testify as to appellant's treatment and condition while a patient there; and an affidavit is submitted to the effect that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Whaley v. CSX Transp., Inc.
...witnesses is a factor the court may consider in deciding whether a change of venue would promote the ends of justice); Holden v. Beach, 228 S.C. 234, 89 S.E.2d 433 (1955) (the ends of justice are promoted by having a jury from the same area as the witnesses evaluate witness Therefore, we ho......
-
McKissick v. J.F. Cleckley & Co.
...by having the credibility of witnesses judged by jurors of the vicinage, the county in which the witnesses reside. Holden v. Beach, 228 S.C. 234, 89 S.E.2d 433 (1955). Once the moving party makes a prima facie showing a venue change will serve both the convenience of the witnesses and the e......
-
McMillan v. B. L. Montague Co.
...of Laws of South Carolina, 1952; Thomas & Howard Company of Conway v. Marion Lumber Company, 232 S.C. 304, 101 S.E.2d 848; Holden v. Beach, 228 S.C. 234, 89 S.E.2d 433; Warren v. Padgett, 225 S.C. 447, 82 S.E.2d 810; Moody v. Burns et al., 222 S.C. 258, 72 S.E.2d 189; and such right is some......
-
Perdue v. Southern Ry. Co.
...38 S.C. 399, 17 S.E. 141; McCarty v. Bolick, 216 S.C. 396, 58 S.E.2d 338; Simmons v. Cohen, 227 S.C. 606, 88 S.E.2d 679; Holden v. Beach, 228 S.C. 234, 89 S.E.2d 433; McCauley v. McLeod, 230 S.C. 380, 95 S.E.2d 611. Motions of this character are addressed to the discretion of the lower Cour......