Southern Bell Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Shepard, 19779

• Decision Date: 04 March 1974
• Docket Number: No. 19779,19779
• Citation: 204 S.E.2d 11,262 S.C. 217
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: SOUTHERN BELL TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY, Plaintiff, Respondent, v. Peter M. SHEPARD, a minor over the age of fourteen (14) years, by his Guardian ad Litem, L. G. Shepard, Defendant and Third Party Plaintiff, Appellant, v. John I. MYERS, Third Party Defendant, Respondent.

Page 11

204 S.E.2d 11

262 S.C. 217

SOUTHERN BELL TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY, Plaintiff, Respondent, v. Peter M. SHEPARD, a minor over the age of fourteen (14)

years, by his Guardian ad Litem, L. G. Shepard, Defendant and Third Party Plaintiff, Appellant, v. John I. MYERS, Third Party Defendant, Respondent.

No. 19779.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

March 4, 1974.

James W. Alford, Fulmer, Berry & Alford, Columbia, for appellant.

Nelson, Mullins, Grier & Scarborough, Columbia, for respondent.

PER CURIAM:

This action arose out of a collision between an automobile owned by Southern Bell Telephone and Telegraph Company, being at the time operated by one of its employees, John I. Myers, the respondents herein, and a motorcycle owned and operated by Peter M. Shepard, the appellant herein. A passenger on the motorcycle, one Allison Pederson, was killed. Peter Shepard suffered permanent injuries as well as damage to his motorcycle. Southern Bell sustained damage to its automobile.

By an amended complaint, Southern Bell sought to recover for damage to its vehicle, contending that the appellant was negligent and reckless in the operation of his motorcycle. The appellant, by his counterclaim and cross action, sought to recover for his personal injury and for damage to his motorcycle, contending that Myers, as an agent and servant for Southern Bell, was negligent and reckless in the operation of its vehicle.

The case came on for trial before the Honorable Dan F. Laney, Jr., presiding judge, and a jury, at the 1973 March Term of the Court of Common Pleas for Richland County, resulting in a jury verdict in favor of Shepard as to Southern Bell's claim and in favor of Southern Bell and Myers as to Shepard's claim. The appellant made a motion for a new trial upon numerous grounds, all of which were denied by the trial judge. This appeal followed.

The appellant charges that the trial judge committed prejudicial error in refusing, upon specific request of his counsel, to inquire of the jury panel on Voir dire examination as to whether or not any juror was a stockholder in the respondent corporation or American Telephone and Telegraph Company, there being a connection between the two.

The trial judge, in his Voir dire examination of the jury, inquired as to whether or not any juror was employed by either Southern Bell Telephone and Telegraph Company or the American Telephone and Telegraph Company. Appellant's counsel then requested that inquiry be made as to whether or not any juror was a stockholder in either of the companies. The trial judge refused to so question the jury and the appellant asserts that the failure of the trial judge to make such inquiry was reversible error.

It is provided in Section 38--202 of the Code, as follows:

'The court shall, on motion of either party in the suit, examine on oath any person who is called as a juror therein to...