Walton v. Stewart, 21663

Decision Date08 March 1982
Docket NumberNo. 21663,21663
Citation289 S.E.2d 403,277 S.C. 436
CourtSouth Carolina Supreme Court
PartiesBrenda Jean Glenn WALTON, Guardian ad Litem for Howard Keith Glenn, Appellant, v. Jimmie Lewis STEWART, Respondent.

Wyatt Saunders, Laurens, for appellant.

James W. Hudgens, of Ward, Howell, Barnes, Long, Hudgens & Adams, Spartanburg, for respondent.

LEWIS, Chief Justice:

This is a tort action for damages by a ten year old illegitimate minor against his father, based upon the latter's alleged negligence. The incident out of which this cause of action is asserted occurred on August 12, 1978, at a time when the rule was recognized in this State that an unemancipated child has no right of action against his parent for personal injuries caused by the parent's negligence. Kelly v. Kelly, 158 S.C. 517, 155 S.E. 888; Parker v. Parker, 230 S.C. 28, 94 S.E.2d 12; Maxey v. Sauls, 242 S.C. 247, 130 S.E.2d 570; Fowler v. Fowler, 242 S.C. 252, 130 S.E.2d 568; Gunn v. Rollings, 250 S.C. 302, 157 S.E.2d 590; Hyder v. Jones, 271 S.C. 85, 245 S.E.2d 123.

The trial judge held that this rule of law barred the present action and granted summary judgment in favor of the respondent father. The guardian ad litem for the minor has appealed. The facts are not in dispute.

The ten year old appellant is the illegitimate son of respondent. Subsequent to the birth of appellant, his mother married her present husband. They have three children, not including appellant. Appellant normally lives with his mother and is known by his mother's maiden name.

Also, subsequent to the birth of appellant, his natural father, the respondent, married his present wife and they have seven children. Appellant spent very little, if any, time with his father until about two years before the present incident occurred. However, during August of 1978, and in the previous year, appellant stayed one week or more in his father's home. During that period of time he stayed with his father's family, receiving room, board, and some clothes. It was during this last visit that the accident occurred, in which appellant lost his left heel in the operation of a lawn mower.

The relationship between appellant and respondent, of father and son, was recognized by all parties. While the respondent did not support appellant, except during the periodic visits to his home, the mother testified that "if I ask him [respondent] for something he [respondent] will give it to him [appellant]."

The father has a legal obligation to support his illegitimate child, which can be enforced through either civil or criminal process. McGlohon v. Harlan, 254 S.C. 207, 174 S.E.2d 753. There is nothing in this record to indicate that respondent father has been, or attempted to be, relieved of this obligation to support the appellant, his child, who is too young to support himself.

While the question of whether a...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Zeigler v. Eastman Chem. Co.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (4th Circuit)
    • 23 Noviembre 2022
    ...where the Supreme Court expressly created a new common-law cause of action or abrogated a common-law immunity, see Walton v. Stewart , 277 S.C. 436, 289 S.E.2d 403 (1982) (abolishing parental immunity); Ludwick v. This Minute of Carolina , 287 S.C. 219, 337 S.E.2d 213 (1985) (creating tort ......
  • Grooms v. Medical Soc. of South Carolina
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • 21 Marzo 1989
    ...where the injury occurred in 1980, the doctrine was abolished in 1981, and the plaintiff filed suit in 1982); cf. Walton v. Stewart, 277 S.C. 436, 289 S.E.2d 403 (1982) (wherein the Supreme Court's holding in Elam v. Elam, 275 S.C. 132, 268 S.E.2d 109 (1980), the decision that abrogated int......
  • Stephens v. Draffin
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • 22 Mayo 1996
    ...immunity, but the suit was brought after, the defendant was entitled to interpose that affirmative defense. Walton v. Stewart, 277 S.C. 436, 289 S.E.2d 403 (1982). Similarly, we refused to allow a wife the right to maintain a statutory loss of consortium action for damages suffered after th......
  • Zeigler v. Eastman Chem. Co.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (4th Circuit)
    • 23 Noviembre 2022
    ... ... common-law cause of action or abrogated a common-law ... immunity, see Walton v. Stewart , 289 S.E.2d 403 ... (1982) (abolishing parental immunity); Ludwick v. This ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT