Williams v. Chesterfield Lumber Co., 20318

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
Citation267 S.C. 607,230 S.E.2d 447
Decision Date02 December 1976
Docket NumberNo. 20318,20318
PartiesJames WILLIAMS, Administrator, Estate of Robert Jackson, Appellant, v. CHESTERFIELD LUMBER COMPANY, Respondent.

Page 447

230 S.E.2d 447
267 S.C. 607
James WILLIAMS, Administrator, Estate of Robert Jackson, Appellant,
v.
CHESTERFIELD LUMBER COMPANY, Respondent.
No. 20318.
Supreme Court of South Carolina.
Dec. 2, 1976.

[267 S.C. 608] Jackson & Bell, Florence, for appellant.

Paulling & James, Darlington, for respondent.

[267 S.C. 609] NESS, Justice:

This is a personal injury case. Appellant Jackson was attempting to repair a machine owned by the respondent lumber company. It was necessary for the appellant to work within the machine and while there, it unexpectedly became operational, injuring him and ultimately causing appellant's foot to be amputated. The trial court granted summary judgment for respondent. We hold this was error.

Page 448

The depositions, 1 which are in the record, reveal that the appellant, due to his proximity at the time of the injury could not identify who started the machine. It was appellant's understanding that the respondent's foreman had the sole authority to operate the switch and the responsibility to see that no one started the machine except at appellant's request. In fact, the foreman had, on that day, engaged the equipment on several occasions at appellant's request. The foreman denied all of these allegations and stated that he was elsewhere in the mill at the time of the accident. Another deposition indicated that subsequent to the accident the switch was examined and was not defective.

It is apparent from the record that there is a factual dispute as to who had actual control and authority over the switch. The materiality of this factual issue is evinced by the complaint which alleges negligence of the respondent in turning on the switch or allowing it to be turned on. Determination of the factual issue of negligence and negligent supervision is imperative in order to clarify the application of the law.

[267 S.C. 610] Summary judgment can only be granted in those cases where plain, palpable and indisputable facts exist on which reasonable minds cannot differ. All ambiguities, conclusions and inferences arising in and from the evidence must be construed most strongly against the movant for summary judgment. Title Insurance Company of Minnesota v. Christian, S.C., 226 S.E.2d 240 (1976); Eagle Construction Company, Inc. v. Richland Construction Company, Inc., 264 S.C. 71, 74, 212 S.E.2d 580 (1975). Here, there is an issue as to whether the respondent by and through its agents, servants or employees negligently...

To continue reading

Request your trial
36 practice notes
  • Sloan v. Sc Bd. of Physical Therapy ex'Mnrs, No. 26209.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • September 25, 2006
    ...in and from the evidence in a light most favorable to the appellant, the non-moving party below. Williams v. Chesterfield Lumber Co., 267 S.C. 607, 230 S.E.2d 447 I. Does South Carolina Code Ann. § 40-45-110(A)(1) (2001) prohibit a physical therapist from working as an employee of a physici......
  • Regions Bank v. Schmauch, No. 3651.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • June 9, 2003
    ...to the non-moving party below." Osborne v. Adams, 346 S.C. 4, 7, 550 S.E.2d 319, 321 (2001); accord Williams v. Chesterfield Lumber Co., 267 S.C. 607, 610, 230 S.E.2d 447, 448 LAW/ANALYSIS I. LIABILITY FOR PLEDGE AND AS GUARANTOR A. Breach of Guaranty Agreement Appellant contends the trial ......
  • Willis v. Wu, No. 25915.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • December 20, 2004
    ...in and from the evidence in a light most favorable to the appellant, the non-moving party below. Williams v. Chesterfield Lumber Co., 267 S.C. 607, 230 S.E.2d 447 In a case raising a novel question of law, the appellate court is free to decide the question with no particular deference to th......
  • Strother v. Lexington County Recreation Com'n, 2586
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • September 11, 1996
    ...review of the record in totality reveals the erroneous decision of the majority. SUMMARY JUDGMENT Williams v. Chesterfield Lumber Co., 267 S.C. 607, 230 S.E.2d 447 (1976), Summary judgment can only be granted in those cases where plain, palpable and indisputable facts exist on which reasona......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
36 cases
  • Regions Bank v. Schmauch, 3651.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • June 9, 2003
    ...to the non-moving party below." Osborne v. Adams, 346 S.C. 4, 7, 550 S.E.2d 319, 321 (2001); accord Williams v. Chesterfield Lumber Co., 267 S.C. 607, 610, 230 S.E.2d 447, 448 LAW/ANALYSIS I. LIABILITY FOR PLEDGE AND AS GUARANTOR A. Breach of Guaranty Agreement Appellant contends the trial ......
  • Sloan v. Sc Bd. of Physical Therapy ex'Mnrs, 26209.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • September 25, 2006
    ...in and from the evidence in a light most favorable to the appellant, the non-moving party below. Williams v. Chesterfield Lumber Co., 267 S.C. 607, 230 S.E.2d 447 I. Does South Carolina Code Ann. § 40-45-110(A)(1) (2001) prohibit a physical therapist from working as an employee of a physici......
  • Willis v. Wu, 25915.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • December 20, 2004
    ...in and from the evidence in a light most favorable to the appellant, the non-moving party below. Williams v. Chesterfield Lumber Co., 267 S.C. 607, 230 S.E.2d 447 In a case raising a novel question of law, the appellate court is free to decide the question with no particular deference to th......
  • Strother v. Lexington County Recreation Com'n, 2586
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • September 11, 1996
    ...review of the record in totality reveals the erroneous decision of the majority. SUMMARY JUDGMENT Williams v. Chesterfield Lumber Co., 267 S.C. 607, 230 S.E.2d 447 (1976), Summary judgment can only be granted in those cases where plain, palpable and indisputable facts exist on which reasona......
  • 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