Huggins v. Broom

• Decision Date: 30 November 1938
• Docket Number: 14778.
• Citation: 199 S.E. 903,189 S.C. 15
• Parties: HUGGINS v. BROOM et al.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

199 S.E. 903

189 S.C. 15

HUGGINS v. BROOM et al.

No. 14778.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

November 30, 1938

Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Spartanburg County; T. S Sease, Judge.

Action by Herman H. Huggins, as administrator of the estate of J. G Huggins, deceased, against Ralph W. Broom and others to recover for the alleged wrongful death of plaintiff's intestate resulting from defendant's negligence in the operation of an automobile. From a judgment for defendants plaintiff appeals.

Affirmed.

Carlisle Brown & Carlisle, of Spartanburg, for appellant.

Johnson & Johnson, of Spartanburg, and Haynsworth & Haynsworth, of Greenville, for respondents.

BAKER Justice.

This is an action under Lord Campbell's Act (Code 1932, § 411, 412), for the alleged wrongful death of appellant's intestate, the complaint alleging that death resulted from the negligence and wilfulness of respondents in the operation of an automobile. The answer pleaded contributory negligence and contributory wantonness of appellant's intestate in the operation of an automobile, and a general denial.

There were three cars involved in the collision, and in the car with appellant's intestate was a Mrs. Towles. She was unable to explain or give any idea as to how and why the collision occurred, and none of the occupants of the other cars were able to explain the accident.

Upon a trial of the case, the jury rendered a verdict in favor of defendants-respondents, and the sole question raised by the appeal is the refusal of the trial judge to grant a new trial for alleged error in the exclusion of opinion evidence offered through a witness, A. T. Willis, a photographer of several years experience, and who for the past ten years had photographed quite a few wreck scenes, and had photographed the scene of this wreck two or three days thereafter.

Appellant states the question involved as follows: "Was it prejudicial error to rule out the testimony offered by plaintiff's witness, A. T. Willis, in explanation and interpretation of photographs in evidence taken by him and his opinions and conclusions with reference to the physical conditions resulting from the collision?"

Respondents state the question thusly: "Was it error for the trial Judge to exclude the opinion of photographer Willis as to which automobile made the skid marks shown in a photograph of the scene of the accident and his conclusions as to the manner in which such skid marks were made?"

As best we can gather from the record, the trial judge had permitted full testimony as to physical conditions apparent at the scene of the wreck, and of the automobiles involved in the collision. He had permitted the...