Joiner v. Fort

• Decision Date: 18 November 1954
• Docket Number: No. 16933,16933
• Citation: 84 S.E.2d 719,226 S.C. 249
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: Mrs. Margaret JOINDER, Respondent, v. W. T. FORT, Appellant.

Page 719

84 S.E.2d 719

226 S.C. 249

Mrs. Margaret JOINDER, Respondent, v. W. T. FORT, Appellant.

No. 16933.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

Nov. 18, 1954.

Weinberg & Weinberg, of Sumter, for appellant.

Nash & Wilson, of Sumter, for respondent.

G. BADGER BAKER, Acting Associate Justice.

On September 5, 1952, the defendant-appellant, a heating contractor, was engaged in cleaning the heating system of the First Baptist Church in Sumter, S. C. The heating system consists of a central unit from whence the heat is conducted through ducts to floor vents and into the church. These register or floor vents are the usual and normal size and covered with a removable metal grating fitted to the floor level. Connected with the auditorium of the church is an annex or overflow section, sometimes used for Sunday School purposes. This annex when not in use as a part of the auditorium is closed and made a separate entity by means of a series of folding and sliding doors. These doors are divided into two sections which are folded and pushed in opposite directions to join the annex and the auditorium. There are floor vents in the main auditorium and annex. One of the heating apertures in the annex is located about one foot from the door or doors when closed, which vent is the one involved in this action.

Prior to the noon hour of September 5, the agents or servants of appellant were repairing or cleaning the vent in the annex adjacent to the sliding doors and had removed the protective covering or grate therefrom. At midday the workmen had not completed the necessary work on this vent and when leaving for the lunch and rest period they did not replace the grate. The workmen, two in number, were using an electric lamp at the end of an extension cord. One of the workmen testified the light, which was left on the floor by the hole, was not cut off, but the other could not remember whether they left the light burning. The respondent, Mrs. Margaret Joiner, and her witnesses testified the light was not burning, which factual issue was decided by the jury adverse to appellant.

A few minutes after noon, respondent entered the auditorium of the church to assist the florist, Mr. J. J. Waters, Jr., in arranging the decorations for a wedding to be performed on the night of September 6th, the rehearsal to be held during the evening of the 5th. Respondent was not an employee of the florist and had gone to the church at the request of the family of the bride-elect. Mr. Waters arrived at the church prior to respondent. He carried his equipment into the auditorium and turned on a few of the lights. Respondent came in and began working in the pulpit area of the auditorium. At this time the sliding doors were closed, whereupon the florist attempted to push them open in order to use the annex space for the wedding. After he had opened them for several feet the doors near the pulpit area stuck, so the florist went around the doors on the annex side to release the door where it was caught, and in the process stepped into this hole which he did not see for lack of visibility. Mr. Waters was not injured and succeeded in opening the doors several more feet but they stuck again, leaving the open vent behind the stuck doors and only a step or two from the door opening. Mr. Waters again attempted to loosen the doors on the auditorium side. The respondent, observing the difficulties the florist had encountered, and being familiar with the eccentricities of these sliding doors, left the place where she was working to aid and assist Mr. Waters. She went to the entrance of the partly opened doors, turned and took a step or two, going towards the long slot into which the doors would be pushed, and stepped into the open vent, receiving severe and painful injuries. Mr. Waters testified that prior to the entry of respondent into the annex he 'made mention' that he had stepped into the hole, but that respondent gave no indication of having heard him. Respondent says she did not hear any statement from her co-worker about the hole and had no reason to anticipate the existence of the open vent. Neither the florist nor respondent turned the lights on in the annex before going in although the light switch was available, but the location of this switch, as contained in the record, is somewhat indefinite.

Suit was thereafter brought against appellant on the theory that appellant's agents and servants negligently and wilfully left the vent open without placing any guard or warning over the hole to protect anyone in the church. The appellant denied negligence or wilfullness and pleaded contributory negligence and wilfullness on the basis that respondent, knowing the visibility in the annex was poor, elected to enter without turning on the lights and attempted to walk over the overflow section when she knew or should have known to do so was unsafe.

A motion for a directed verdict in behalf of appellant was refused by the Presiding Judge and the case submitted to the jury following his instructions on the principles of law. The jury returned a verdict for respondent in the amount of $7,500, actual damages. Appellant then presented a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or, in the alternative, for a new trial, which motions were refused.

There are three exceptions which raise four questions, to wit: (1) Has actionable negligence been established against appellant; (2) Was respondent guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law; (3) Are medical expenses recoverable by a wife in an action for her bodily injuries; and...