Whisenant v. James Island Corp., 21556
| Decision Date | 31 August 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 21556,21556 |
| Citation | 277 S.C. 10,281 S.E.2d 794 |
| Parties | Clyde F. WHISENANT and Nancy L. Whisenant, Appellants, v. JAMES ISLAND CORPORATION and Piggly Wiggly Wholesale, Inc., Respondents. |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
Morris D. Rosen and Marvin I. Oberman, Rosen, Oberman & Rosen, Charleston, for appellants.
P. Michael Duffy and Falcon Hawkins, Hawkins & Morris, Charleston, for respondents.
Clyde F. and Nancy L. Whisenant appeal from a verdict directed against them in their action to recover damages for the destruction of a "fast food" type building by the respondents James Island Corporation and Piggly Wiggly Wholesale, Inc. The verdict was directed at the conclusion of the evidence for the alleged failure of appellants to present enough evidence to permit the jury to determine the damages with reasonable certainty. We reverse.
In deciding a motion for a directed verdict, the court must consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the party resisting the motion and if more than one reasonable inference can be drawn from the evidence then the case must be submitted to the jury. Fielding Home for Funerals v. Public Savings Life Insurance Company, 271 S.C. 117, 245 S.E.2d 238 (1978); see, Collins Cadillac, Inc. v. Bigelow-Sanford, Inc., 279 S.E.2d 611 (S.C.1981). Viewed in this light, we find sufficient evidence in the record to submit the issue of damages to the jury.
The Whisenants purchased a franchise for a fast food operation from Hamburgers of South Carolina, Inc. for $60,000 in 1971. Under the contract the Whisenants acquired ownership of the building and its equipment as well as assignment of a sublease to the portion of a shopping center on which the building was erected. The Whisenants had the right to remove the building from the site.
Clyde F. Whisenant testified that at approximately the same time, he acquired a similar franchise in the same geographic area for $40,000, but that unlike the one at the shopping center, he had no right to remove the second building from its site. At one time Clyde F. Whisenant apparently operated five Dairy Queen Stores in the Charleston area.
Whisenant stated that the building at issue was approximately 26 feet by 44 feet and was in essence a take-out restaurant. The building was constructed on a concrete slab; steel beams were set in the slab and covered by siding and plate glass.
By 1976, the Whisenants no longer operated the Johns Island Store. Meanwhile, the respondents had decided to expand the shopping center and sought to have the Whisenants remove their store building. Much controversy surrounds the events occurring throughout the next few months. For whatever reasons, however, the matter was apparently not resolved between the parties. Finally, the respondents unilaterally authorized the dismantlement of the building. The Whisenants assert that a building mover had been engaged and was ready to move the structure. The mover asserted at trial that he could have moved the building largely intact. The respondents have stored the equipment removed from the store and also the salvageable material from the building.
At the conclusion of the evidence, the respondents moved for a directed...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jolly v. Gen. Elec. Co.
...v. Stokes-Craven Holding Corp. , 387 S.C. 22, 43, 691 S.E.2d 135, 146 (2010) (emphasis added) (quoting Whisenant v. James Island Corp. , 277 S.C. 10, 13, 281 S.E.2d 794, 796 (1981) ). Although the amount of damages may not "be left to conjecture, guess or speculation, proof with mathematica......
-
Proctor v. Dept. of Health
...bears an inherent flexibility facilitating the just assessment of lost profits holds true here as well. In Whisenant v. James Island Corp., 277 S.C. 10, 13, 281 S.E.2d 794, 796 (1981), our supreme court observed: Generally, in order for damages to be recoverable, the evidence should be such......
-
Austin v. Stokes-Craven Holding Corp., Opinion No. 26784 (S.C. 3/8/2010)
...as to enable the court or jury to determine the amount thereof with reasonable certainty or accuracy." Whisenant v. James Island Corp., 277 S.C. 10, 13, 281 S.E.2d 794, 796 (1981). "While neither the existence, causation nor amount of damages can be left to conjecture, guess or speculation,......
-
In re Blackbaud, Inc., Customer Data Breach Litigation
...guess or speculation, proof with mathematical certainty of the amount of loss or damage is not required." Whisenant v. James Island Corp. , 277 S.C. 10, 281 S.E.2d 794, 796 (1981) (citing Piggy Park Enter., Inc. v. Schofield , 251 S.C. 385, 162 S.E.2d 705 (1968) ). Injuries similar to those......