Poston v. Southeastern Const. Co.

• Decision Date: 31 January 1946
• Docket Number: 15797.
• Parties: POSTON v. SOUTHEASTERN CONST. CO. et al.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

36 S.E.2d 858

208 S.C. 35

POSTON v. SOUTHEASTERN CONST. CO. et al.

No. 15797.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

January 31, 1946

Mitchell & Horlbeck, of Charleston, for appellants.

McEachin & Townsend, of Florence, for respondent.

BAKER Chief Justice.

The respondent testified, in substance, that on or about November 21 (it developed that it was on November 23), 1942, he was working on the top of a building for the appellant Southeastern Construction Company, and while guiding a wooden truss, being lowered by a crane, into place, 'a puff of something from the truss filled both eyes'; that the substance melted before he could get it out of his eyes, and that his eyes soon became so inflamed and ran so continuously that he could not work; that the company nurse sent him to a doctor but the doctor could do nothing for him, and the next day he was sent to Dr. Price, eye specialist; that his eyes continued to pain him and make it impossible for him to see well, and had never improved in vision since that time, but if anything, had grown worse; that he had used glasses before the injury only to protect his eyes from foreign substances such as dust while bailing hay or tearing buildings down, but had been compelled to use glasses prescribed by Dr. Price since that time; that even with such glasses he could not see to do interior work and for that reason could hold only certain carpenter jobs; that prior to his injury he had been able to do any kind of carpenter work without glasses, and, as stated above, used them only for protection against foreign substances.

This was the only testimony on behalf of the respondent.

The only testimony on behalf of the appellant was that of Dr. F R. Price, an eye, ear, nose and throat specialist located at Charleston. Dr. Price testified that the respondent came to him about November 25, 1942, with his left eye 'red and inflamed and irritated and it was evident that he had conjunctivitis which might be caused from any cause' that there was no evidence of trauma and he washed out the eye and put antiseptic drops into it; that conjunctivitis may be caused from bacteria in it, or it may be traumatic, and could be both; that on November 27, the condition of the eye was improved, and on November 30 the eye was getting along pretty well; that on December 3 the eye was still red and inflamed and he took a blood test to ascertain if anything was delaying the healing process; that on December 7 the eye showed a slight greyish infiltration of the cornea, so on December 9 he did a refactory of the eye to see just what was the condition of his vision. Dr. Price then entered upon his findings as to the vision of both eyes, and that he prescribed glasses for him, and on December 20 'told him that he had a high degree of farsightedness and that he should wear glasses all the time'; that he reexamined respondent on June 10, 1943, and there was no evidence of any damage, past or present, to the cornea of the eye; that respondent had been farsighted all his life, usually due to default in the growth of the eyeball; and that he was not just giving an opinion, but was stating a medical fact; and that the farsightedness with which respondent was affected could not in any way be attributed to anything he might have got in his eye.

...