Williams v. Regula
| Citation | 266 S.C. 228,222 S.E.2d 7 |
| Decision Date | 03 February 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 20163,20163 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | Carl J. WILLIAMS, Administrator of the Estate of Anita Faye Williams, Appellant, v. Laurence J. REGULA, Respondent. |
C. D. Hopkins, Jr., North Charleston, for appellant.
Arthur G. Howe of Uricchio, Howe & Kress, Charleston, for respondent.
This is a wrongful death action brought by appellant as Administrator of the Estate of Anita Faye Williams, deceased, pursuant to Section 10--1951, et seq. of the Code of Laws of South Carolina, 1962, as amended. Respondent's motion for an involuntary nonsuit was granted and this appeal followed. We dismiss.
Carl J. Williams, the intestate's father, leased from respondent and occupied a trailer home with his five (5) children, including the deceased. Metal steps and a landing with handrails were attached at the front door. An outside, or porch light, was grounded to the bottom of the metal steps. The ground wire which passed near the handrail was frayed and had been previously repaired by tape. Difficulties with the light prompted appellant to twice complain to respondent that the cable, or porch light wiring was bad. The intestate was electrocuted upon exiting the trailer barefooted in the rain.
The complaint was founded in tort and alleged that the death was a direct and proximate result of the negligence and recklessness of the respondent in creating and allowing to continue a dangerous and deadly lighting appliance. At the conclusion of the testimony in behalf of the appellant the trial judge granted an involuntary nonsuit on the ground that the premises were in the exclusive possession and control of the tenant and the landlord was not liable in tort under the law applicable to this relationship, citing as authority for his ruling the case of Timmons v. Williams Wood Products Corporation, 164 S.C. 361, 162 S.E. 329, and the case of Sheppard v. Nienow, 254 S.C. 44, 173 S.E.2d 343.
The sole exception, as stated by the appellant, is as follows: 'It is respectfully submitted that the Court made a reversible error in nonsuiting the appellant.'
This exception is too general. It requires this Court to consider all of the testimony presented to the circuit judge. It has been repeatedly held that an exception such as this violates Rule 4, Section 6 of the Supreme Court rules which provides:
The case of Solley v. Weaver, 247 S.C. 129, 146 S.E.2d 164 points out the reason for and object of an exception:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ellison v. Heritage Dodge, Inc.
...concur. 1 Although Ellison's exception does not comply with Rule 4, Section 6 of the Supreme Court Rules [ see e.g., Williams v. Regula, 266 S.C. 228, 222 S.E.2d 7 (1976) ], we will consider it nonetheless. See Baker v. Weaver, 279 S.C. 479, 309 S.E.2d 770 (S.C.App.1983). The exception read......
-
Ag-Chem Equipment Co., Inc. v. Daggerhart
...that such an exception is defective and need not be considered. Graham v. Kerns, 278 S.C. 197, 294 S.E.2d 38 (1982); Williams v. Regula, 266 S.C. 228, 222 S.E.2d 7 (1976); Solley v. Weaver, 247 S.C. 129, 146 S.E.2d 164 (1966). Exception Number Two violates Supreme Court Rule 4, Section 6, b......
-
Morris v. Beacham, 21154
...record. For this reason alone, the appeal should be dismissed. Silas v. Brown, 266 S.C. 505, 224 S.E.2d 672 (1976); Williams v. Regula, 266 S.C. 228, 222 S.E.2d 7 (1976). We nevertheless consider the appeal on its merits. Appellant first excepts to the master's refusal to be bound by a stip......
-
Smith v. South Carolina Dept. of Social Services
...of an appeal. See Frederick Richards, Inc. v. Port City Glass & Mirror, Inc., 274 S.C. 558, 266 S.E.2d 67 (1980); Williams v. Regula, 266 S.C. 228, 222 S.E.2d 7 (1976); Barbee v. Poston, 277 S.C. 504, 289 S.E.2d 649 (1982); Burris v. State, 278 S.C. 151, 293 S.E.2d 309 (1982). Being aware t......