Williams v. Chesterfield Lumber Co.
Decision Date | 02 December 1976 |
Docket Number | No. 20318,20318 |
Citation | 267 S.C. 607,230 S.E.2d 447 |
Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
Parties | James WILLIAMS, Administrator, Estate of Robert Jackson, Appellant, v. CHESTERFIELD LUMBER COMPANY, Respondent. |
Jackson & Bell, Florence, for appellant.
Paulling & James, Darlington, for respondent.
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.
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.
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 supervised or operated the switch.
We hold under these...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 7-day Trial
-
Regions Bank v. Schmauch
...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 (1976). I. LIABILITY FOR PLEDGE AND AS GUARANTOR A. Breach of Guaranty Agreement Appellant contends the trial court......
-
Sloan v. Sc Bd. of Physical Therapy ex'Mnrs
...arising 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 (1976). ISSUES I. Does South Carolina Code Ann. § 40-45-110(A)(1) (2001) prohibit a physical therapist from working as a......
-
Willis v. Wu
...arising 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 (1976). In a case raising a novel question of law, the appellate court is free to decide the question with no particular......
-
Strother v. Lexington County Recreation Com'n
...A careful 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), elucidates: Summary judgment can only be granted in those cases where plain, palpable and indisputable facts ......
-
Chapter 56 Summary Judgment
...S.E.2d 724 (2007).[32] USAA Prop. and Cas. Ins. Co. v. Clegg, 377 S.C. 643, 661 S.E.2d 791 (2008); Williams v. Chesterfield Lumber Co., 267 S.C. 607, 230 S.E.2d 447 (1976).[33] Higginsv. MUSC, 326 S.C. 592, 599, 486 S.E.2d 269, 272 (Ct. App. 1997) ("When ruling on a motion for summary judgm......
-
§ 12.13 Motion for Summary Judgment
...in and from the evidence in a light most favorable to the non-moving party below." Id. (citing Williams v. Chesterfield Lumber Co., 267 S.C. 607, 230 S.E.2d 447 (1976)). "[I]n cases applying the preponderance of the evidence burden of proof, the non-moving party is only required to submit a......