Renew v. Serby
| Decision Date | 11 August 1960 |
| Docket Number | No. 17697,17697 |
| Citation | 115 S.E.2d 664,237 S.C. 116 |
| Parties | Bertha RENEW, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Herman SERBY and Vacation Wear, Inc., Defendants-Appellants. |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
Henderson, Salley & Cushman, Aiken, for appellants.
Williams & Busbee, Aiken, for respondent.
In this action for slander the jury found for the plaintiff. The defendants charge error in the refusal of their motions for nonsuit, direction of verdict, and judgment n. o. v.
During July, 1958, the plaintiff, a young married woman, was employed by the corporate defendant at its plant at New Ellenton, S. C., as an inspector of garments, and the defendant Serby was employed by it in a managerial capacity. Serby was at the New Ellenton plant only one or two days each week, and had little personal contact with the plaintiff or other employees of like status.
The complaint alleged that on July 25, 1958, the defendant Serby, while engaged in his duties at the New Ellenton plant, in the presence of one or more employees 'uttered and published verbally of and concerning plaintiff words which were intended to and did impute to plaintiff a want of chastity, by then and there stating that plaintiff was he (Serby's) girl, requesting that plaintiff refuse to have sexual relations with her (plaintiff's) husband that night; and then uttering the following remark to plaintiff: 'Oh, honey, don't blush like that. Come on back here and let me talk to you."
The defendants filed a joint answer, admitting that at the time and place in question a conversation had taken place between the plaintiff and the defendant Serby, but denying that its substance was as alleged in the complaint, and setting forth an entirely different version of the matter.
In support of the allegations of the complaint the plaintiff testified that on the day in question, which was a Friday, when she and Mrs. Mills, another employee, had returned to the plant after lunching together, Serby called them to his desk, where he and one Leonard Whitt, an employee in the shipping department, were seated; that in response to Serby's inquiry as to the progress of the work, plaintiff replied that it was 'coming along all right', but that the 'make-up', i. e., the amount of production set for each day, was getting very high. From this point we quote her testimony:
'Mr. Serby said don't worry about the make-up, we are not in a rush, we will see about it later. He reached out, he held out his hand and tried to catch my hand. He told the man: 'This is my girl.' I said: 'No, sir, I am not your girl.' He said: 'You will have to work tomorrow.' I said: 'I don't mind working on Saturday.' He said: 'You can break that date tonight.' I said: He said: 'You go home and tell him he can't have any of that stuff tonight or any night.' Mrs. Mills and I walked away and started to the table to get the material. He hollered and said: 'Come on back, honey, don't blush like that.' I went to my inspector's table and I gathered up my belongings. He was standing in the middle of the floor. I asked him what he meant by talking to me like that. He said he run into all the girls like that. I said: 'Here men don't run on women no such way."
Mrs. Mills' testimony corroborated that of the plaintiff except as follows: According to Mrs. Mills, when Serby said of the plaintiff, 'This is my girl', he looked at Whitt and laughed. Also, when plaintiff replied that she was not his girl, she turned as if to walk away, whereupon the following transpired:
Both Serby and Whitt denied that anything untoward was said; but the testimony of the two...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Smith v. Phoenix Furniture Company
...proceed with his suit if he is able to prove that he sustained some "special" damage. Lesesne v. Willingham, supra; Renew v. Serby, 237 S. C. 116, 115 S.E.2d 664 (1960); Drakeford v. Dixie Home Stores, 233 S.C. 519, 105 S.E.2d 711 (1958). The words alleged in the plaintiff's Complaint, and ......
-
Wardlaw v. Peck, 0182
...sensus rule remains the law today. See Tucker v. Pure Oil Co. of the Carolinas, 191 S.C. 60, 3 S.E.2d 547 (1939); Renew v. Serby, 237 S.C. 116, 115 S.E.2d 664 (1960); Davis v. Niederhof, 246 S.C. 192, 143 S.E.2d 367 In this case, Peck concedes his words could be understood as describing sex......
-
Goudy v. Dayton Newspapers, Inc.
...to the jury. It was obviously written in jest, and the jury so found in its answer to interrogatory No. 3. Defendants cite Renew v. Serby, 237 S.C. 116, 115 S.E.2d 664, in support of their In that case the plaintiff alleged that the defendant, in the presence of one or more fellow employees......