Honour v. Southern Pub. Utilities Co., (No. 9999.)
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina |
| Writing for the Court | GARY |
| Citation | 96 S.E. 250 |
| Parties | HONOUR. v. SOUTHERN PUBLIC UTILITIES CO. (two cases). |
| Docket Number | (No. 9999.) |
| Decision Date | 25 June 1918 |
96 S.E. 250
HONOUR.
v.
SOUTHERN PUBLIC UTILITIES CO. (two cases).
(No. 9999.)
Supreme Court of South Carolina.
June 25, 1918.
Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Greenville County; Jos. A. McCollough, Special Judge.
Actions by Eugene C. Honour and by T. A. Honour against the Southern Public Utilities Company. From judgments for defendant, plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.
J. E. Leach, of Greenville, for appellants.
Haynsworth & Haynsworth, of Greenville, for respondent.
GARY, C. J. These two cases were heard together. The action by the plaintiff, Eugene C. Honour, is to recover actual and punitive damages for personal injuries, alleged to have been sustained through the negligence and willfulness of the defendant, in causing its electric car to collide with a truck car belonging to the plaintiff, T. A. Honour, while it was being operated by his son, the plaintiff, Eugene C. Honour. The action by the plaintiff, T. A. Honour, is for the recovery of actual and punitive damages for injury to his truck car. The defendant denied the allegations of negligence and willfulness, and set up the defense of contributory negligence. His honor the presiding judge charged the jury fully and ably in regard to negligence, contributory negligence, willfulness, actual damages, and punitive damages. The jury rendered a verdict in each case in favor of the defendant, and the plaintiffs appealed. The testimony is not stated in the record.
The first question presented by the exceptions is whether there was error on the part of his honor the presiding judge in failing to charge the jury that contributory negligence on the part of a plaintiff cannot be interposed as a defense, when the willfulness of the defendant was the proximate cause of the injury. Neither of the plaintiffs presented a request to so charge, nor did they call to the attention of the presiding judge the fact that he had failed to charge that proposition. The case of the State v. Long, 93 S. C. 502, 77 S. E. 61, as well as numerous other cases cited in the argument of the respondent's attorneys, are conclusive of this question, and show that the exceptions, assigning error in this respect, cannot be sustained.
[21 The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Smith v. Oliver Motor Co, No. 13965.
...court is asked to review. This rule has been thoroughly discussed in the cases of Honour v. Southern Public Utilities Co., 110 S. C. 103, 96 S. E. 250, State v. Cooper, 118 S. C. 300, 110 S. E. 152, Hayes v. McGill, 116 S. C. 375, 108 S. E. 150, and Adams v. Wilkes, 118 S. C. 93, 109 S. E. ......
-
Shea v. Glens Falls Indem. Co., No. 17067
...the exception contains more than one proposition of law or assignment of error. Honour v. Southern Public Utilities Co., 110 S.C. 163, 96 S.E. 250. All of the exceptions of the appellant are overruled and the judgment of the Court below is STUKES, TAYLOR, OXNER and LEGGE, JJ., concur. ...
-
Dudley Trucking Co. v. Hollingsworth, No. 18155
...omission now complained of, and the failure to do so constituted a waiver thereof. Honour v. Southern Public Utilities Co., 110 S.C. 163, 96 S.E. 250; Jeffords v. Florence County, 165 S.C. 15, 162 S.E. 574; G. A. C. Finance Corporation v. Citizens & Southern National Bank, 234 S.C. 205, 107......
-
South Carolina Power Co v. Baker, No. 16030.
...to charge to this effect and the Court's attention was not called to the omission. Honour v. Southern Public Utilities Co., 110 S.C. 163. 96 S.E. 250; McNinch v. City of Columbia, 128 S.C. 54, 122 S.E. 403; Tolbert v. Southern Mut. Life Ins. Co. et al., 175 S.C. 338, 179 S.E. 308; Jeffords ......
-
Smith v. Oliver Motor Co, No. 13965.
...court is asked to review. This rule has been thoroughly discussed in the cases of Honour v. Southern Public Utilities Co., 110 S. C. 103, 96 S. E. 250, State v. Cooper, 118 S. C. 300, 110 S. E. 152, Hayes v. McGill, 116 S. C. 375, 108 S. E. 150, and Adams v. Wilkes, 118 S. C. 93, 109 S. E. ......
-
Shea v. Glens Falls Indem. Co., No. 17067
...the exception contains more than one proposition of law or assignment of error. Honour v. Southern Public Utilities Co., 110 S.C. 163, 96 S.E. 250. All of the exceptions of the appellant are overruled and the judgment of the Court below is STUKES, TAYLOR, OXNER and LEGGE, JJ., concur. ...
-
South Carolina Power Co v. Baker, No. 16030.
...to charge to this effect and the Court's attention was not called to the omission. Honour v. Southern Public Utilities Co., 110 S.C. 163. 96 S.E. 250; McNinch v. City of Columbia, 128 S.C. 54, 122 S.E. 403; Tolbert v. Southern Mut. Life Ins. Co. et al., 175 S.C. 338, 179 S.E. 308; Jeffords ......
-
Dudley Trucking Co. v. Hollingsworth, No. 18155
...omission now complained of, and the failure to do so constituted a waiver thereof. Honour v. Southern Public Utilities Co., 110 S.C. 163, 96 S.E. 250; Jeffords v. Florence County, 165 S.C. 15, 162 S.E. 574; G. A. C. Finance Corporation v. Citizens & Southern National Bank, 234 S.C. 205, 107......