Legette v. Smith, 20127
| Decision Date | 09 December 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 20127,20127 |
| Citation | 220 S.E.2d 429,265 S.C. 573 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | Gary Lee LEGETTE, as Temporary Administrator of the Estate of Christopher Legette, Appellant, v. Tom SMITH, d/b/a Tom Smith Construction Company, Respondent. |
Franklin R. DeWitt, Conway, for appellant.
William H. Seals, Marion, and Joe M. Cox, Mullins, and Frank K. Sloan, Columbia, for respondent.
This wrongful death action arose out of the death by drowning of three-year-old Christopher Legette in a septic tank. Plaintiff, the deceased's father brought suit as the administrator of his son's estate, alleging the negligence of the defendant in constructing and installing the septic tank as the sole and proximate cause of his son's death.
The septic tank had been built and installed by defendant's subcontractor, Tommy White, for one Melinda Legette (plaintiff's sister) two and one-half years before the accident. It was located a short distance from the rear of her residence. Plaintiff's son was visiting at Melinda Legette's house and being cared for by her three children on the day of the accident. The body of the child was found in the septic tank. Nothing in the record reveals when the top of the tank caved in, or what caused it.
Defendant's answer was, in essence, a general denial.
The evidence disclosed that the septic tank was constructed at the subcontractor's (Tommy White's) plant, on precast frames, and brought to the Legette house for installation. The tank consisted of two sections which were placed in the ground and covered with four lids, made of concrete and reinforced by metal rods and wire mesh. Each of the four lids was five feet long and four inches thick, and weighed approximately four hundred pounds. After the tank and lids were in place, a layer of dirt six to eight inches thick was placed on top and sown with grass.
The subcontractor testified that the lids are not made to withstand great stress, that they are put in place with a chain hoist, and sometimes a tractor runs over the edge of a tank when covering it with dirt. A county health officer testified that he inspected the tank before it was covered over and noted no faults with either the tank or its lids.
Both plaintiff and Melinda Legette testified that they were generally aware of the tank's location in the back yard and that they were sure no vehicles had driven over it since it had been installed. However, they both testified that a truck had driven in the area to install a gas tank and to refill it at times, and also that plaintiff drove his car in the backyard to wash it.
The plaintiff failed to present evidence explaining why the top of the tank caved in. All the testimony is to the effect that construction and installation of the tank was normal and that until the accident no problem whatsoever was encountered with the structural aspects of the tank.
Following the drowning, the subcontractor replaced one of the four lids. Plaintiff did not retrieve the broken lid in an effort to have it examined to determine the reason for its collapse. Plaintiff and defendant did testify that they 'poked' around in the tank, but neither indicated they found the missing lid.
After all the testimony was presented, the trial...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Young v. Tide Craft, Inc.
...determinations it is elementary that we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the opposing party, e. g. Legette v. Smith, 265 S.C. 573, 220 S.E.2d 429 (1975). It is also elementary that when the evidence permits but one reasonable inference, a question of law is presented for the......
-
Bain v. Self Memorial Hosp.
...res ipsa loquitur in this case. Adoption of this doctrine was recently considered by our Supreme Court and rejected. Legette v. Smith, 265 S.C. 573, 220 S.E.2d 429 (1975). Counsel in that case applied for and obtained the right to argue against prior decisions refusing to adopt the doctrine......
-
Gibson v. Schultz
...negligent in any other way, and South Carolina does not recognize the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. Legett v. Smith, 265 S.C. 573, 578, 220 S.E.2d 429, 430 (S.C.1975). Even had the court concluded that as a matter of law McLeod had been negligent in applying her brakes, there still would h......
-
Cook v. U.S., 86-1131
...and rejected." Baine v. Self Memorial Hosp., 314 S.E.2d 603, 605, 281 S.C. 138, ______ (S.C.Ct.App.1984), citing Legette v. Smith, 220 S.E.2d 429, 265 S.C. 573 (1975). Therefore, on its face, appellant's argument appears correct. That is, to support his finding of negligence, the district c......