Mccrae v. Mccoy

• Citation: 52 S.E.2d 403
• Decision Date: 16 March 1949
• Docket Number: No. 16197.,16197.
• Parties: McCRAE . v. McCOY et al.
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina

52 S.E.2d 403

McCRAE .
v.
McCOY et al.

No. 16197.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

March 16, 1949.

.

[52 S.E.2d 404]

Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Sumter County; L. D. Lide, Judge.

Action by Hammie McCrae against Ray L. McCoy and others for personal injuries sustained in a collision between a bicycle ridden by plaintiff and named defendant's truck-trailer. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal.

Affirmed.

M. M. Weinberg and C. M. Edmunds, both of Sumter, for appellants.

W. L. Clifton and C. L. Cuttino, both of Sumter, for respondent.

FISHBURNE, Justice.

This action was brought for the recovery of damages for personal injuries sustained by the respondent arising out of a collision between a bicycle ridden by him and the defendant truck-trailer owned and operated by the appellant, McCoy. The accident occurred on November 30, 1946, about midday, on East Liberty Street in the City of Sumter. Upon trial of the case, a verdict was rendered by the jury in respondent's favor for $2,500 actual damages, for which judgment was entered. The appellants' motions for a mistrial and a new trial were overruled. The respondent was seriously and permanently injured, and there is no exception relating to the verdict as being excessive.

Upon call of the case, a motion to strike the following allegation from the complaint was granted by the trial judge:

"That defendant, Fred Holmes, was an incompetent driver and defendant, Ray L. McCoy, had knowledge thereof or should have had knowledge thereof had he exercised reasonable care in the selection and employment of said defendant, Fred Holmes."

In the course of the trial, Fred Holmes was called as a witness by the appellants. During his cross examination, respondent's counsel, it is charged, was guilty of misconduct in that he persistently pursued a prejudicial course in the examination of this witness by questioning him with reference to other highway wrecks in which he had been involved. Notwithstanding the ruling of the court striking out the allegation above referred to, this witness was asked the following questions: "Haven't you been involved in other accidents?" "Four people injured, haven't you?" Before the witness made answer, a motion for an order of mistrial was made by appellants' counsel on the ground of prejudice. The motion was refused.

The court ruled that the questions were incompetent, instructed the jury to pay no attention to them, and expressed the opinion that the alleged misconduct of respondent's counsel had not been...