Whelan v. Welch
| Decision Date | 09 April 1991 |
| Docket Number | No. 1663,1663 |
| Court | South Carolina Court of Appeals |
| Parties | , Prod.Liab.Rep. (CCH) P 12,830 Thomas E. WHELAN, Respondent, v. Thomas F. WELCH, d/b/a Welch Roofing, Appellant, v. MASONITE CORPORATION, Respondent. . Heard |
Jack D. Simrill, Hilton Head Island, for appellant.
John R.C. Bowen, Hilton Head Island and James S. Gibson, Jr., Beaufort, for respondents.
In this case a homeowner, Thomas E. Whelan, who is not a party on appeal, sued Thomas F. Welch for negligently installing a roof on his home. Welch then sued Masonite Corporation on a third party complaint alleging negligence and breach of warranty. The trial judge directed a verdict for Masonite on the negligence claim, and the jury returned a verdict for Whelan against Welch and for Masonite on the warranty claims. We affirm.
The issues of merit are (1) whether the trial judge erred in directing a verdict for Masonite on the negligence claim, and (2) whether the trial judge erred in withdrawing from evidence Masonite's instructions 301 which were circulated more than a year after the installation of the roof on Whelan's home.
We review the essential facts in a light most favorable to Welch. Whelan and Welch entered into a contract on September 26, 1985, in which Welch agreed to install a Masonite roof on Whelan's home. Welch installed the Masonite roof. Shortly thereafter, Whelan began to complain about leaks, and after many complaints and long negotiations, this suit was instituted.
Welch attempted to show and did elicit some evidence that most of the leaking occurred in the valleys of the roof. The record reflects that in installing the roof, Welch did not remove the worn flashing from the valleys. The valley flashing is an appropriately shaped piece of metal that lies in the valley under the shingles. Both outer edges of the flashing are indented or raised generally in an inverted "V" shape to form a water guard edge. If the water guard edge is flattened, the roof might leak. A water guard edge protector, as those words are used in this case, is simply a 1/2"' X 1 1/2"" wood strip tied adjacent to the water guard edge which is designed to prevent crushing the water guard edge when nailing the shingles.
We reject Welch's contention that the trial judge erred in directing a verdict in favor of Masonite as to the negligence cause of action.
On appeal from an order granting a directed verdict, this Court views the evidence and all reasonable inferences deductible therefrom in a light most favorable to the party against whom the directed verdict was granted. If the evidence as a whole is susceptible of more than one reasonable inference, a jury issue is created and the motion should have been denied. Claytor v. General Motors Corp., 277 S.C. 259, 286 S.E.2d 129 (1982).
In viewing the evidence and all reasonable inferences deductible therefrom in a light most favorable to Welch, we find that the evidence as a whole discloses negligent installation on the part of Welch and no evidence of negligence on the part of Masonite.
As an illustration, Masonite instructions 502 required that the Masonite roofing be applied only to a solid roof plywood sheathing or similar solid sheathing. Welch applied the Masonite roofing to existing spaced sheathing or 1 X 4 wood sheathing which was spaced in many instances, and many of the nails went through the open space of the sheathing leaving the shingles unanchored. Additionally, the evidence reflects that Welch failed to replace the defective flashing, some of which had nail holes in it. No purpose would be served in a detailed review of the evidence which we hold reflects that the defects in the roof which Welch installed were brought about by Welch's negligence and not by negligent instruction on the part of Masonite.
We reject Welch's contention that the trial judge erred in withdrawing from evidence Masonite's instructions 301 1...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gastineau v. Murphy
...the motion should have been denied. See Adams v. G.J. Creel and Sons, Inc., 320 S.C. 274, 465 S.E.2d 84 (1995); Whelan v. Welch, 304 S.C. 548, 405 S.E.2d 836 (Ct.App.1991); Unlimited Services, Inc. v. Macklen Enterprises, Inc., 303 S.C. 384, 401 S.E.2d 153 (1991) (d.v. or j.n.o.v.). This do......
-
Roper v. Dynamique Concepts, Inc.
...is susceptible of only one reasonable inference, no jury issue is created and the motion was properly granted. Whelan v. Welch, 304 S.C. 548, 405 S.E. 2d 836 (Ct.App.1991); Unlimited Services, Inc. v. Macklen Enterprises, Inc., 303 S.C. 384, 401 S.E.2d 153 Viewing the evidence and all reaso......
-
Shelton v. Oscar Meyer Foods Corp.
...is susceptible of more than one reasonable inference, a jury issue is created and the motion should be denied. Whelan v. Welch, 304 S.C. 548, 405 S.E.2d 836 (Ct.App.1991). Viewing the evidence and its reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to Shelton, the nonmoving party, we hold......
-
Kumpf v. United Telephone Co. of Carolinas, Inc., 2005
...to remedy dangerous situations, post-accident, without fear that the remedy will be used against them. Whelan v. Masonite Corporation, 304 S.C. 548, 405 S.E.2d 836 (1991). This rule excludes testimony of post-accident remediation from being evidence of negligence. This is not a negligence c......