Stockman v. Marlowe
| Decision Date | 30 August 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. 20756,20756 |
| Citation | 247 S.E.2d 340,271 S.C. 334 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | Maxcy H. STOCKMAN, Respondent, v. Priscilla G. MARLOWE, Appellant. |
McGowan, Nettles, Keller & Eaton, Florence, for appellant.
Hyman, Morgan, Brown, Saleeby, Jeffords & Rushton, Florence, for respondent.
This action was brought to recover for property damage and personal injuries suffered by the respondent as a result of a collision between his automobile and the automobile of the appellant. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the respondent for $18,000 actual damages and $7,000 punitive. We affirm.
On this appeal, the appellant has listed nine exceptions. Aside from one exception to be discussed below, these exceptions are patently without merit and are dismissed under Rule 23 of the Rules of Practice of this Court since they are governed by settled principles of law and no error of law appears.
The only exception warranting written treatment is the appellant's second exception which reads as follows:
It is respectfully submitted that the Court below erred in failing to charge that contributory recklessness, willfullness and wantonness would be a complete defense and in failing to properly define the terms in that the issue of contributory recklessness, willfullness and wantonness was an issue made by the pleadings and the evidence. 1
This exception presents two questions: (1) Did the lower court fail to properly define contributory recklessness, wilfulness and wantonness; and (2) did the lower court err in failing to charge that contributory recklessness, wilfulness and wantonness is a complete defense?
With regard to the first question, the record reveals that the trial judge did not specifically define contributory recklessness, wilfulness, and wantonness. However, in construing his charge as a whole, we cannot agree with the appellant that this omission was prejudicial since it is clear that the jury was adequately informed of the elements of this defense. The trial judge, immediately after defining the terms recklessness, wilfulness and wantonness, moved to a discussion of "contributory negligence and/or recklessness" and, in obvious reference to the previous definition of recklessness, wilfulness and wantonness, informed the jury, "I have already, in effect, defined these terms (contributory recklessness, wilfulness and wantonness) for you." Thus, although the terms in question were defined by reference to another portion of the charge, the charge as a whole was sufficient and was not prejudicial.
After the above charges were given, the trial judge instructed the jury that if the appellant had established contributory negligence or recklessness on the part of the respondent, the doctrine of comparative negligence, as embodied in S.C.Code, § 15-1-300 (1976), would then arise. Section 15-1-300 provides:
Contributory negligence shall not bar recovery in motor vehicle accident action.
In any motor vehicle accident, contributory negligence shall not bar recovery in any action by any person or legal representative to recover damages for negligence resulting in death or in injury to person or property, if such contributory negligence was equal to or less than the negligence which must be established in order to recover from the party against whom recovery is sought.
The appellant contends that, since § 15-1-300 only refers to contributory negligence, it has no application to the defense of contributory recklessness, wilfulness, and wantonness. 2...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hook v. Rothstein
...See State v. Cater, 241 S.C. 262, 127 S.E.2d 882 (1962) (where exception merely referred to a request to charge); Stockman v. Marlowe, 271 S.C. 334, 247 S.E.2d 340 (1978) (where exception contained more than one proposition for The appellant professed to argue in her brief all of her except......
-
Ziarko v. Soo Line R. Co.
...Tilden (1977), 278 Or. 11, 562 P.2d 1188; DeYoung v. Fallon (1990), 104 Or.App. 66, 798 P.2d 1114. South Carolina: Stockman v. Marlowe (1978), 271 S.C. 334, 247 S.E.2d 340. Trevino v. Lightning Laydown, Inc. (Tex.App.1990), 782 S.W.2d 946; Turner v. Lone Star Industries, Inc. (Tex.App.1987)......
-
Langley v. Boyter
...and as President of the United States.15 See Taylor v. Bridgebuilders, Inc., 275 S.C. 236, 269 S.E.2d 337 (1980), Stockman v. Marlowe, 271 S.C. 334, 247 S.E.2d 340 (1978) and Williams v. Barry, 271 S.C. 295, 247 S.E.2d 319 (1978) (cases tried before Marley in which the statute held unconsti......
-
Berberich v. Jack
...negligence in this state, there is a trio of cases from our appellate courts that are instructive in this regard. In Stockman v. Marlowe, 271 S.C. 334, 247 S.E.2d 340 (1978), this Court considered whether reckless, willful, and wanton conduct could be compared to ordinary negligence in a ca......