Langley v. Boyter
| Decision Date | 10 December 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 22343,22343 |
| Citation | 286 S.C. 85,332 S.E.2d 100 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | Robin LANGLEY, Respondent, v. James Lee BOYTER and Concrete Specialties of America, Petitioners. . Writ Issued |
Kenneth M. Suggs, Columbia, for respondent.
Robert G. Currin, Jr., Columbia, for petitioners.
Charles E. Carpenter, Jr., Columbia, amicus curiae, for S.C. Defense Trial Attorneys.
H. Fred Kuhn, Jr., Beaufort, amicus curiae, for S.C. Trial Lawyers Association.
This is a typical automobile collision case wherein the plaintiff seeks damages for personal injuries and property loss. The complaint alleges negligence, proximate cause and damages attributable to the defendants. The defendants deny negligence and assert the affirmative defense of contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff. At a pre-trial conference, plaintiff moved that the defense of contributory negligence be struck and that the court apply the doctrine of comparative negligence instead. The motion was denied.
Upon a jury trial, the plaintiff requested that the judge charge the law of comparative negligence in lieu of the law of contributory negligence. This motion was also denied. After the jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendants, the plaintiff requested a new trial on the ground that the judge erred in refusing to apply the law of comparative negligence. A new trial was denied and an appeal to the Supreme Court of South Carolina followed.
Counsel for the plaintiff petitioned the Court for permission to argue for the abolition of the doctrine of contributory negligence and for the overruling of prior cases upholding that doctrine. On January 6, 1982, this Court denied the petition.
Thereafter, the case was included among those transferred to the Court of Appeals for hearing. On November 21, 1983, the plaintiff filed an identical petition with the Court of Appeals to be allowed to argue for the overruling of the doctrine of contributory negligence. That motion was granted by the Court of Appeals. Thereafter, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial judge and declared for the first time the law of comparative negligence was applicable in this state. Accordingly, a new trial was ordered by the Court of Appeals.
Subsequently, a Writ of Certiorari to review the opinion of the Court of Appeals was issued. We have now heard arguments and quash the opinion of the Court of Appeals as found in Langley v. Boyter, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Davenport v. Cotton Hope Plantation
...negligence as stated in Langley v. Boyter, 284 S.C. 162, 325 S.E.2d 550 (Ct.App.1984) opinion quashed on procedural grounds by 286 S.C. 85, 332 S.E.2d 100 (1985). In Langley, Judge Sanders provided the following justification for adopting a comparative negligence system: "It is contrary to ......
-
Creighton v. Coligny Plaza Ltd.
...plaintiffs own negligence contributed to her damages. Langley v. Boyter, 284 S.C. 162, 325 S.E.2d 550 (Ct.App.1984),quashed, 286 S.C. 85, 332 S.E.2d 100 (1985). A defense based on the doctrine of assumption of risk requires a showing that the plaintiff (1) has knowledge of the facts constit......
-
Davenport v. Cotton Hope Plantation Horizontal Property Regime
...Const. art. V., sec. 9 ("The decisions of the Supreme Court shall bind the Court of Appeals as precedents."); Langley v. Boyter, 286 S.C. 85, 87, 332 S.E.2d 100, 101 (1985) (reversing this court's adoption of comparative negligence and holding, "That issue must await the permission of [the ......
-
Coleman v. Soccer Ass'n of Columbia
...doctrinal substitution has not proven out uniformly in execution. Langley v. Boyter, 325 S.E.2d 550, 560 (S.C. App. 1984), quashed, 332 S.E.2d 100 (S.C. 1984), cited with approval, Nelson v. Concrete Supply Co., 399 S.E.2d 783, 784 (S.C. 1991) ("[T]he history of legislative action in the va......