Kelly v. Brazell, 19012
| Citation | 253 S.C. 564,172 S.E.2d 304 |
| Decision Date | 04 February 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 19012,19012 |
| Parties | Alice KELLY, Respondent, v. Lanny Mack BRAZELL, Appellant. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina |
Turner, Padget, Graham & Laney, Columbia, for appellant.
Lee & Ball, Columbia, for respondent.
This tort action for personal injuries growing out of an automobile collision was tried before the Honorable John A. Mason, Judge of the Richland County Court, and a jury, resulting in a verdict in favor of the plaintiff. A motion for a new trial was overruled and the defendant appealed.
The sole exception is as follows:
'That the Court erred in charging the jury that it could return a verdict in favor of the Plaintiff for future medical expenses, the error being that there was no testimony that medical expenses were likely to be incurred in the future.'
The judge's charge to which exception is taken is as follows:
'Also, I charge you that you should include in your verdict the reasonable and necessary extents (sic) to the plaintiff, if any, for any medical, surgery, or any other services and care which you find reasonably certain to be required in the future treatment of the plaintiff as a proximate result of the injury in question.'
A jury should be instructed only as to the issues raised by the pleadings and supported by the evidence. The matters to be covered in the instructions depend upon the issues joined by the pleadings and supported by the evidence.
We review the transcript to the extent necessary to determine whether evidence was introduced warranting the charge that compensation for future treatment might be awarded. The plaintiff is a 60-year-old woman who works as a maid at Columbia College. The injury was to her back and neck. She was hospitalized after the collision for about ten days and remained away from her work for a period of four weeks. Since that time she has been back at her employment. She testified
In response to counsel's question: 'Are you still having difficulty?' she testified:
Dr. Edward Kimbrough testified that in his professional opinion she had a permanent disability of approximately five percent. He stated:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City of Greenville v. WR Grace & Co.
...award future costs in both personal injury and property damage cases without any firm estimates in evidence. See e.g. Kelly v. Brazell, 253 S.C. 564, 172 S.E.2d 304 (1970) (personal injury); Hiers v. Southeastern Carolinas Telephone Co., 216 S.C. 437, 58 S.E.2d 692 (1950) (business damage).......
-
Juaire v. United States
...Any award of future medical expenses must also be based upon something more than mere speculation. See generally, Kelly v. Brazell, 253 S.C. 564, 172 S.E.2d 304 (1970). In proving future medical expenses, the value of such care may often be established through expert medical testimony. See ......
-
Pearson v. Bridges, 3070.
...of each scenario occurring. This evidence was properly submitted to the jury for its consideration. See Kelly v. Brazell, 253 S.C. 564, 567-68, 172 S.E.2d 304, 306 (1970) ("[T]he fact that future medical expense ... are difficult to estimate would not deprive the plaintiff of the right to h......
-
Roberson v. U.S.A
...App. 1999). Any award of future medical expenses must be based upon something more than mere speculation. See Kelly v. Brazell, 253 S.C. 564, 567, 172 S.E.2d 304, 306 (1970). In proving future medical expenses, "the value of such care [is] established through expert testimony. Obviously, ex......