Roberts v. Peterson, 0915
| Decision Date | 22 January 1987 |
| Docket Number | No. 0915,0915 |
| Court | South Carolina Court of Appeals |
| Parties | , 39 Ed. Law Rep. 370 Kimberly J. ROBERTS, Respondent, v. Jere PETERSON, Appellant. . Heard |
Robert N. Rosen and Alice F. Paylor of Rosen, Rosen & Hagood, Charleston, for appellant.
Lawrence C. Kobrovsky and Deborah Wright of Stuckey & Kobrovsky, Charleston, for respondent.
Kimberly J. Roberts (Roberts) brought this action against her former schoolteacher, Jere Peterson (Peterson), for personal injuries caused by the breaking or exploding of a glass tube during a chemical experiment. The State of South Carolina maintained a liability insurance policy covering Peterson for personal injury liability. Peterson handed the suit papers to her school principal. The school authorities failed to timely notify its attorney or the insurance company. Roberts obtained a default judgment as to liability on February 25, 1985. The appealed order of January 22, 1986, found that Peterson had a meritorious defense and that although Peterson's negligence in not answering was excusable, the school board's was not and the negligence of the school board was imputable to Peterson and denied Peterson's motion to vacate the order of default. We reverse and remand.
From the record we conclude that Peterson has a valid and meritorious defense but that the school authorities were negligent, but not necessarily inexcusably negligent.
We also conclude from the record that although the state maintained a personal injury liability policy to cover Peterson, there is no evidence of record that the state maintained an errors and omissions liability insurance policy covering the particular school employees who failed to hand the suit papers to the attorney. In all probability, were the appealed order affirmed and a large verdict rendered against Peterson, since this suit was instituted on January 16, 1985, Peterson would have no recourse against the state under McCall v. Batson, 285 S.C. 243, 329 S.E.2d 741 (1985).
The courts of this state have consistently held that the negligence of an attorney or insurance company is imputable to a defaulting litigant. See 12 S.C. Digest Judgment Key No. 143 (West. 1975). Before us, however, is an employer, the school officials of Charleston County, whose business is education not litigation. The duty to act timely in attending the pending litigation was, of course, existent. But the negligence in the failure to act was more excusable, we think, than the cases involving attorneys or insurance companies.
And there is another consideration. It is the general rule in this country that when an employee hands suit papers to his/her employer and the employer fails to properly answer the suit papers, the courts grant relief to the defaulting defendant in the interest of trying cases on their merits. See King v. Mitchell, 188 Or. 434, 214 P.2d 993 (1950), 16 A.L.R.2d 1128 and the authorities cited in the annotation.
Turning to the case at hand, the trial judge made his ruling in this case pursuant to Section 15-27-310, Code of Laws of South Carolina (1976), repealed by 1985 S.C.Act No. 100. Arguments in this...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sundown Operating Co. v. Intedge Indus.
... ... is imputable to a defaulting litigant. See Roberts v ... Peterson , 292 S.C. 149, 151, 355 S.E.2d 280, 281 (Ct ... App. 1987) (noting, ... ...
-
State v. Colf, 2875.
...pre-Rules situations. Thus, federal cases construing the same rule provision are persuasive in our analysis. Roberts v. Peterson, 292 S.C. 149, 355 S.E.2d 280 (Ct.App.1987). To support his contention that the trial court abused its discretion and failed to make the necessary findings requir......
-
First Union Nat. Bank of South Carolina v. FCVS Communications, 2498
...the absence of prior state law on the issue in question, federal cases interpreting the rule are persuasive. See Roberts v. Peterson, 292 S.C. 149, 355 S.E.2d 280 (Ct.App.1987) (where a state rule has adopted the language of a federal rule, federal cases interpreting the federal rule are pe......
-
Mitchell Supply Co., Inc. v. Gaffney, 1253
...whose business was education, not handling legal matters, was more excusable than the neglect of an attorney. Roberts v. Peterson, 292 S.C. 149, 355 S.E.2d 280 (Ct.App.1987). In Roberts we cited with approval language from South Carolina Civil Procedure by Dean H.M. Lightsey and Professor J......
-
With Friends Like These Who Needs Enemies? Getting Out of Default Is Never Easy
...S.E.2d at 54 (citing Hill v. Dotts, 345 S.C. 304, 310, 547 S.E.2d 894, 897 (Ct.App.2001). [5] Id. at 650, 741 S.E.2d at 55. [6] Id. [7] 292 S.C. 149, 355 S.E.2d 280 (Ct.App. 1987). [8] Id. at 150, 355 S.E.2d at 280-81. [9] Id. at 151, 355 S.E.2d at 281. [10] Id. [11] Id. [12] Id. [13] Id. a......