Laney v. Hefley, No. 19760

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
Writing for the CourtBUSSEY; MOSS
Citation262 S.C. 54,202 S.E.2d 12
PartiesNancy H. LANEY, as Administratrix of the Estate of Angela Dawn Laney, Respondent, v. James Crawford HEFLEY, Appellant.
Decision Date17 January 1974
Docket NumberNo. 19760

Page 12

202 S.E.2d 12
262 S.C. 54
Nancy H. LANEY, as Administratrix of the Estate of Angela
Dawn Laney, Respondent,
v.
James Crawford HEFLEY, Appellant.
No. 19760.
Supreme Court of South Carolina.
Jan. 17, 1974.

[262 S.C. 55] B. D. Hayes and John C. Hayes, Hayes, Brunson & Gatlin, Rock Hill, for appellant.

James H. Howey, Lancaster; and Henry Hammer, Columbia, for respondent.

[262 S.C. 56] BUSSEY, Justice:

This is an action, commenced in February 1972, to recover for the wrongful death of Angela Dawn Laney who was two and a half years old at the time of her death. She was fatally injured on October 26, 1970 when she came in contact with an automobile driven by the appellant, the accident occurring on Hudson Street in the City of Lancaster, approximately in front of the home of her grandmother, Mrs. Nellie Laney, with whom the child and her parents were then living. At a trial commencing October 26, 1972, the plaintiff recovered a verdict for actual damages in the amount of $7,000.00.

The only question upon appeal arises out of the application of Circuit Court Rule 90 to the facts herein related. In April 1972, pursuant to interrogatories served upon plaintiff, answers thereto were served in which there were listed the names of witnesses known to plaintiff or her counsel, there not being listed the names of four

Page 13

persons who were present in the house with the mother of the deceased child at the time of the fatal accident. Subsequently, on September 20, 1972, the defendant took the depositions of both parents of the deceased child and each of them testified that they did not know of any witness who actually saw the accident. The mother, however, testified that there were four persons present with her at the residence at the time of the accident, to-wit: Mrs. Nellie Laney, Pat Ballard, Barbara Reeves and Emily Hinson, none of whose depositions, however, was subsequently taken by the defendant.

Upon the trial of the case, counsel for plaintiff offered all four of these persons as witnesses. Counsel for the defense objected on the ground that they had not been disclosed as [262 S.C. 57] witnesses in answers to the April interrogatories and contended that such witnesses should not be permitted to testify. The trial judge, in the absence of the jury, heard the testimony of all of these witnesses and thereafter denied defendant's motion for a mistrial and ruled that such witnesses would be permitted to testify. However, only the grandmother, Mrs. Nellie Laney, and Mrs. Hinson testified in the presence of the jury. The defendant presently does not contend that there was anything prejudicial in the testimony of Mrs. Hinson, but does seriously urge that His Honor erred in failing to either exclude the testimony of Mrs. Nellie Laney, or, in the alternative, grant his motion for a mistrial.

Mrs. Nellie Laney did not actually see the accident but testified that she was sitting at a window in her bedroom sewing when she heard the Hefley car approaching, looked up and saw the car going by the window, and a moment later heard the noise of the accident. She was asked if she could tell about how fast the car was going and replied, 'I am not a good judge of how fast a car goes. I would say 35 or 40 miles.' She was the only witness offered by the plaintiff who actually saw the defendant's car prior to the accident, but her testimony as to the speed thereof was corroborative of the testimony of the father of the child to the effect that the defendant himself had stated subsequent to the accident that his speed was about 35 to 40 miles per hour, which statement the defendant denied having made. The lawful, applicable speed limit was 25 miles per hour.

The plaintiff was initially represented by Mr. James H. Howey, of the Lancaster Bar, who tried the case. At some point Mr. Howey associated Mr. Henry Hammer of the Columbia Bar...

To continue reading

Request your trial
27 practice notes
  • Fields v. REGIONAL MED. CENTER ORANGEBURG, No. 3623.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • April 14, 2003
    ...several days before trial does not show willfulness. Martin v. Dunlap, 266 S.C. 230, 239, 222 S.E.2d 8, 12 (1976); Laney v. Hefley, 262 S.C. 54, 202 S.E.2d 12 (1974). The purpose of interrogatories is to promote full and fair disclosure to prevent surprise to either party. South Carolina St......
  • Baughman v. American Tel. and Tel. Co., No. 23399
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • December 14, 1990
    ...matters and persons expected to be called as expert witnesses. Rules 33(b) and 26(e)(1), S.C.R.C.P.; see also Laney v. Hefley, 262 S.C. 54, 202 S.E.2d 12 (1974); Briggs v. Richardson, 288 S.C. 537, 343 S.E.2d 653 Here, Plaintiffs properly responded to Nassau's Interrogatory 6, which sought ......
  • Samples v. Mitchell, No. 2747
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • December 19, 1997
    ...abused his discretion in choosing a sanction. Jackson v. H. & S. Oil Co., Inc., 263 S.C. 407, 211 S.E.2d 223 (1975); Laney v. Hefley, 262 S.C. 54, 202 S.E.2d 12 (1974); Downey v. Dixon, 294 S.C. 42, 362 S.E.2d 317 [329 S.C. 112] In deciding what sanction to impose for failure to disclose ev......
  • Funderburk v. Funderburk, 2018-001173
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • December 8, 2021
    ...prior knowledge of the name by said party." Callen v. Callen, 365 S.C. 618, 627, 620 2 S.E.2d 59, 63-64 (2005) (quoting Laney v. Hefley, 262 S.C. 54, 59-60, 202 S.E.2d 12, 14 (1974)). "After inquiring, the court has discretion whether to admit or exclude the testimony." Id. at 627, 620 S.E.......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
27 cases
  • Fields v. REGIONAL MED. CENTER ORANGEBURG, No. 3623.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • April 14, 2003
    ...several days before trial does not show willfulness. Martin v. Dunlap, 266 S.C. 230, 239, 222 S.E.2d 8, 12 (1976); Laney v. Hefley, 262 S.C. 54, 202 S.E.2d 12 (1974). The purpose of interrogatories is to promote full and fair disclosure to prevent surprise to either party. South Carolina St......
  • Baughman v. American Tel. and Tel. Co., No. 23399
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • December 14, 1990
    ...matters and persons expected to be called as expert witnesses. Rules 33(b) and 26(e)(1), S.C.R.C.P.; see also Laney v. Hefley, 262 S.C. 54, 202 S.E.2d 12 (1974); Briggs v. Richardson, 288 S.C. 537, 343 S.E.2d 653 Here, Plaintiffs properly responded to Nassau's Interrogatory 6, which sought ......
  • Samples v. Mitchell, No. 2747
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • December 19, 1997
    ...abused his discretion in choosing a sanction. Jackson v. H. & S. Oil Co., Inc., 263 S.C. 407, 211 S.E.2d 223 (1975); Laney v. Hefley, 262 S.C. 54, 202 S.E.2d 12 (1974); Downey v. Dixon, 294 S.C. 42, 362 S.E.2d 317 [329 S.C. 112] In deciding what sanction to impose for failure to disclose ev......
  • Funderburk v. Funderburk, 2018-001173
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • December 8, 2021
    ...prior knowledge of the name by said party." Callen v. Callen, 365 S.C. 618, 627, 620 2 S.E.2d 59, 63-64 (2005) (quoting Laney v. Hefley, 262 S.C. 54, 59-60, 202 S.E.2d 12, 14 (1974)). "After inquiring, the court has discretion whether to admit or exclude the testimony." Id. at 627, 620 S.E.......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT