Norris v. Ferre, No. 2031
| Court | Court of Appeals of South Carolina |
| Writing for the Court | LITTLEJOHN |
| Citation | 432 S.E.2d 491,315 S.C. 179 |
| Parties | W. Melvin NORRIS, Jr., Appellant, v. George A. FERRE, M.D., and George A. Ferre, M.D., P.A., Respondent. . Heard |
| Decision Date | 21 April 1993 |
| Docket Number | No. 2031 |
Page 491
v.
George A. FERRE, M.D., and George A. Ferre, M.D., P.A., Respondent.
Decided June 7, 1993.
Rehearing Denied July 23, 1993.
Certiorari Denied March 4, 1994.
Page 492
[315 S.C. 180] O. Fayrell Furr, Jr., Myrtle Beach and Charles L. Henshaw, Columbia, for appellant.
Charles E. Carpenter, Jr., Deborah L. Harrison, and George C. Beighley, Columbia and James I. Redfearn, Chesterfield, for respondent.
LITTLEJOHN, Acting Judge.
W. Melvin Norris brought an action against physician George A. Ferre for medical malpractice connected with back surgery. The jury returned a verdict for Ferre. Norris appeals. We affirm.
Norris fell from a deer stand and broke his back. Dr. Blake Dennis performed surgery upon Norris and inserted Harrington rods to stabilize the fracture. When the time came for the rods to be removed, Dennis had moved to another town and was not available. Norris arranged for Ferre to remove the [315 S.C. 181] rods. Ferre began the surgery, but encountered unexpected bone overgrowth and decided not to continue. Ferre closed the incision and referred Norris back to Dennis, who eventually removed the rods. Norris subsequently brought this lawsuit, claiming malpractice in Ferre's aborted surgery. Following a trial the jury found in favor of Ferre. Norris appeals, alleging reversible error in several trial rulings.
I.
Norris first argues the trial judge erred in failing to conduct a meaningful voir dire examination. Norris proposed nineteen questions for voir dire, some with multiple parts. The trial judge addressed some of the requested areas with his own questions but refused to ask certain specific questions. On appeal, Norris claims error in this refusal. We disagree.
The method and scope of voir dire are largely within the discretion of the trial judge. Rule 47(a), SCRCP; State v. Matthews, 291 S.C. 339, 353 S.E.2d 444 (1986); 5A Moore's Federal Practice p 47.06, pp. 47-15 & -16 (1992). Rule 47(a) provides in part that the trial judge shall permit parties to supplement the examination and shall submit additional questions submitted by the parties. However, this "requirement" is limited to questions which the trial judge "deems proper." Thus, the trial judge maintains broad discretion in this area, and an appellate court will rarely second-guess his decision in this regard. Accord 9 Charles A....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Creighton v. Coligny Plaza Ltd., No. 2909.
...v. Southeast Zayre, Inc., 274 S.C. 519, 265 S.E.2d 517 (1980); State v. Middleton, 266 S.C. 251, 222 S.E.2d 763 (1976); Norris v. Ferre, 315 S.C. 179, 432 S.E.2d 491 (Ct.App.1993). On appeal, this court will rely on the judgment of the trial judge who is able to observe the character and de......
-
State v. Fletcher, No. 3940.
...victim experienced similar acts of abuse by the defendant which occurred in the same places and during the same time frame. Id. at 108, 432 S.E.2d at 491. Evidence of abuse against another stepdaughter was not admissible because she was not subjected to the alleged abusive conduct to the ex......
-
Wilson v. Childs, No. 2049
...519 (1980) (the refusal to make any inquiry regarding the possible bias of jurors is reversible error); Norris v. Ferre, --- S.C. ----, 432 S.E.2d 491 (1993) (Rule 47(a), SCRCP, provides the trial judge broad discretion in regards to voir dire ). The trial court is not required to ask every......
-
Wall v. Keels, No. 2848.
...Thus, as a general rule, the trial court is not required to ask all voir dire questions submitted by the attorneys. Norris v. Ferre, 315 S.C. 179, 432 S.E.2d 491 (1993), cert. denied (March 4, 1994); Wilson, 315 S.C. at 438, 434 S.E.2d at 291; see also Rule 47(a), SCRCP (When the trial cour......
-
Creighton v. Coligny Plaza Ltd., No. 2909.
...v. Southeast Zayre, Inc., 274 S.C. 519, 265 S.E.2d 517 (1980); State v. Middleton, 266 S.C. 251, 222 S.E.2d 763 (1976); Norris v. Ferre, 315 S.C. 179, 432 S.E.2d 491 (Ct.App.1993). On appeal, this court will rely on the judgment of the trial judge who is able to observe the character and de......
-
State v. Fletcher, No. 3940.
...victim experienced similar acts of abuse by the defendant which occurred in the same places and during the same time frame. Id. at 108, 432 S.E.2d at 491. Evidence of abuse against another stepdaughter was not admissible because she was not subjected to the alleged abusive conduct to the ex......
-
Wilson v. Childs, No. 2049
...519 (1980) (the refusal to make any inquiry regarding the possible bias of jurors is reversible error); Norris v. Ferre, --- S.C. ----, 432 S.E.2d 491 (1993) (Rule 47(a), SCRCP, provides the trial judge broad discretion in regards to voir dire ). The trial court is not required to ask every......
-
Wall v. Keels, No. 2848.
...Thus, as a general rule, the trial court is not required to ask all voir dire questions submitted by the attorneys. Norris v. Ferre, 315 S.C. 179, 432 S.E.2d 491 (1993), cert. denied (March 4, 1994); Wilson, 315 S.C. at 438, 434 S.E.2d at 291; see also Rule 47(a), SCRCP (When the trial cour......