Porter v. Hardee, 18014
| Decision Date | 10 January 1963 |
| Docket Number | No. 18014,18014 |
| Citation | 241 S.C. 474,129 S.E.2d 131 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | Sandra Jean PORTER, by her duly appointed guardian ad litem, R. C. Porter, Respondent, v. Leon D. HARDEE, Sr., and Clarine Vereen, Defendants, in which Leon D. Hardee, Sr., is, Appellant. |
McCaskill & Thompson, Conway, for appellant.
Long & Long, Conway, for respondent.
This is an appeal by the defendant, Leon D. Hardee, Sr., from a judgment entered against him in favor of the plaintiff for personal injuries sustained by her in an automobile collision while she was riding in an automobile registered in the name of the defendant and driven by his minor son, Leon D. Hardee, Jr. The collision occurred on a Sunday afternoon while Leon D. Hardee, Jr., was engaged in pleasure ride, accompanied by the plaintiff and one other person. This action was brought against the defendant upon the theory that the automobile, in which the plaintiff was riding, was owned by the defendant and was being used at the time by his son within the scope and purpose of a family automobile. The issues were submitted to the jury and resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff for the sum of $2850.00.
The sole question for determination in this appeal, preserved by appropriate motions of the defendant in the lower court and exceptions here, is whether or not there was any evidence to sustain the jury's finding that the automobile in question was owned or maintained by the defendant for family purposes, so as to impose liability upon him under the family purpose doctrine.
The plaintiff called as one of her witnesses, Leon D. Hardee, Jr., the minor son of the defendant, who was driving the automobile in which the plaintiff was riding at the time of the collision. The record fails to show the facts to be other than as this witness testified and, having called him as a witness, the plaintiff was bound by his testimony. Rakestraw v. Allstate Insurance Co., 238 S.C. 217, 119 S.E.2d 746; Brissie v. Southern Ry. Co., 209 S.C. 503, 41 S.E.2d 97.
Leon D. Hardee, Jr., testified that he lived with his father, the defendant, on his father's farm and received income from the farming operations. He further testified that he purchased the automobile with his money about two weeks prior to the wreck, but title to the vehicle was placed in his father's name because he was a minor. His testimony shows that the defendant maintained an automobile which was used by the family, the automobile in question being used almost exclusively by Leon D. Hardee, Jr.
The testimony for the plaintiff, which was corroborated by that of the defendant, therefore, shows that the automobile in which plaintiff was riding was owned by Leon D. Hardee, Jr., the minor son of the defendant and used almost exclusively by him; that title to the vehicle was placed in the defendant's name solely because Leon D. Hardee, Jr., was a minor; that the defendant provided another automobile for the use of himself and his family; and that the automobile in question was not provided, maintained, or used by the defendant for general family purposes.
The family purpose doctrine, upon which plaintiff relied to impose liability upon the defendant, has been...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gause v. Smithers
...had to run a jitney line—the convenience and pleasure of his family, of which his minor son ... was a member.”). In Porter v. Hardee, 241 S.C. 474, 129 S.E.2d 131 (1963), the defendant, Leon Hardee, Sr. (Leon Sr.), appealed from a judgment finding him liable for personal injuries sustained ......
-
Campbell v. Paschal
...... is that the head of the family own, maintain, or furnish the automobile ... for general family use ..." Porter v. Hardee, 241 S.C. 474, 477, 129 S.E.2d 131, 132 (1963) [Italics ours]. Later cases used slightly different language: "[A] head of a family, who owns, furnishes and maintains ......
-
Shryock v. Madrid
...Telecable of Columbus, Inc., 140 Ga.App. 755, 232 S.E.2d 100 (1976); Herman v. Magnuson, 277 N.W.2d 445 (N.D.1979); Porter v. Hardee, 241 S.C. 474, 129 S.E.2d 131 (1963). Plaintiffs claim Vincent Madrid conceded that his son, Steven, had the authority required under the family purpose doctr......
-
Lucht v. Youngblood, 20150
...230 S.C. 207, 95 S.E.2d 168 (1956). The Act does not specifically or by implication repeal the line of cases of Porter v. Hardee, 241 S.C. 474, 129 S.E.2d 131 (1963) and Reid v. Swindler, 249 S.C. 483, 495, 154 S.E.2d 910 (1967). This exception is Next, appellants argue the trial court erre......