Knight v. Johnson

• Decision Date: 24 March 1964
• Docket Number: No. 18187,18187
• Citation: 135 S.E.2d 372,244 S.C. 70
• Parties: Walter M. KNIGHT, Respondent, v. Issac JOHNSON, Appellant.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

Page 372

135 S.E.2d 372

244 S.C. 70

Walter M. KNIGHT, Respondent, v. Issac JOHNSON, Appellant.

No. 18187.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

March 24, 1964.

Haynsworth, Perry, Bryant, Marion & Johnstone, Greenville, for appellant.

Bolt & Bowen, Greenville, for respondent.

LEWIS, Justice.

The plaintiff and the defendant were involved in an automobile collision as they were driving their respective vehicles along East Georgia Road near Simpsonville, South Carolina. They were meeting each other and the collision occurred as the defendant was in the process of making a left turn into his driveway. This action was then brought by the plaintiff to recover the damages sustained by him, alleging that the collision resulted from the negligent and reckless manner in which the defendant operated his automobile at the time. The answer of the defendant, in addition to a general denial, contained the defense of contributory negligence and recklessness, which was based upon the specification of negligence, among others, that the plaintiff was operating his automobile at an excessive rate of speed under the circumstances. During the trial of the case, the defendant was allowed to introduce testimony, over the objection of the plaintiff, as to the motive and purpose governing the plaintiff in the operation of his automobile at the time of the collision. The trial of the case resulted in a verdict for the defendant, but a new trial was granted by the lower court, on motion of the plaintiff, upon the ground that prejudicial error had been committed in the admission of the foregoing testimony. From the order granting a new trial upon this ground, the defendant has appealed.

While the basic question for determination concerns the admissibility of the foregoing testimony, the plaintiff has raised the preliminary question that the order granting a new trial is not subject to review by this Court.

The plaintiff contends, that the order of the lower court granting a new trial was based upon a question of fact and is, therefore, not appealable. The rule is well-settled that an order of the trial court granting or refusing a new trial, when based solely on an error of law, is subject to review by this Court, but when the order is based upon questions of fact, or upon questions of law and fact, it is not appealable. Turner v. Carey, 223 S.C. 477, 76 S.E.2d 671.

The trial judge stated in his order: 'I have now concluded, after a study of the transcript of record and the authorities, that in permitting such of the testimony, over the objection of the plaintiff, as was admitted, that the court committed prejudicial error.' The order granting a new trial was, therefore, based upon the conclusion that the admission of the testimony in question constituted prejudicial error. This ruling was based solely upon an error of law and is subject to review.

The record before us is very meager, but it appears that the plaintiff was taking his son to a doctor and had just left the town of Simpsonville when the collision occurred. The necessity for taking his son to the doctor does not appear in the record, but was...