Williams v. Williams
| Decision Date | 17 June 1965 |
| Docket Number | D-314079,No. 18366,18366 |
| Citation | 246 S.C. 158,142 S.E.2d 858 |
| Parties | Willie Lee WILLIAMS, Respondent, v. Thomas Carlisle WILLIAMS and Francis Williams, d/b/a Williams Motors, and One 1956 Ford, 1963 License, of Whom Francis Williams, d/b/a Williams Motors, is Appellant. |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
Belser, Belser & Baker, Columbia, R. Milo Smith, Lexington, for appellant.
E. Pickens Rish, Lever & Shealy, Lexington, for respondent.
This appeal arises out of an action instituted against Appellant, Francis Williams, d/b/a Williams Motors, and Thomas Carlisle Williams and one 1956 Ford to recover for personal injuries and property damages sustained as a result of an automobile accident on February 2, 1963.
The defendant automobile was owned by one Everette Berry and had been delivered to Appellant's business establishment the day before for certain repairs. At the time of the collision, said automobile was being driven by defendant, Thomas Carlisle Williams. It is alleged in the complaint that 'at the time and place in question, the defendant, Thomas Carlisle Williams, was acting within the scope of his authority and in the course of his employment as agent and servant' of Appellant, and that Respondent's injuries and damage were caused by the 'negligence, gross negligence, willfulness, wantonness and unlawful acts of the Defendant, Thomas Carlisle Williams, the agent and servant' of Appellant.
Answer was filed denying the allegations of the complaint, asserting the defense of contributory negligence and alleging that the defendant, Thomas Carlisle Williams was not acting as agent, servant or employee of Appellant or within the scope of his employment at the time of the accident.
The case was tried on April 21, 1964, by the Honorable William L. Rhodes and a jury, which returned the following verdict:
'We find for the plaintiff Five-Hundred and no one Hundred Dollars ($500.00) actual damages, and Five Thousand and no one Hundred Dollars ($5,000.00) punitive damages against the defendants, Thomas Carisle Williams and (1) 1956 Ford only.'
Respondent thereafter moved for a new trial on the grounds that the award of actual damages by the jury against Appellant's codefendants was inadequate, that the verdict as to agency was against the weight of the evidence, and that the Court should have ruled as a matter of law that the defendant, Thomas Carlisle Williams, was an agent of Appellant.
After argument and submission of briefs, Judge Rhodes, in his Order of October 2, 1964, held that 'the testimony concerning the question of agency and whether or not Thomas Carlisle Williams was acting, at the time of the accident, within the scope of his agency and employment, was sufficiently conflicting that as a matter of law the issue was one for the determination of the jury' and as to this point the motion for a new trial was 'herewith denied and overruled.' He further held that a new trial should be granted on the grounds of inadequacy of the damages awarded Respondent by the jury in its verdict against the defendant, Thomas Carlisle Williams and the defendant automobile, and that the granting of a new trial upon the grounds of inadequacy of damages required a new trial against all defendants in the action, including Appellant, even though no award or verdict against Appellant has been given by the jury. The verdict of the jury was accordingly ordered to be set aside and Respondent granted a new trial de novo as to all parties-defendant.
The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Griffin v. Griffin
...to determine whether there has been an abuse of discretion amounting to an error of law. Toole v. Toole, supra; Williams v. Williams, 246 S.C. 158, 142 S.E.2d 858 (1965). The record shows that Franklin at the time of trial was thirty-six years of age. Immediately following the accident, he ......
-
Clark v. Columbus & Greenville Ry. Co.
...one defendant in no way operates to give plaintiff a second shot at a co-defendant exonerated by the jury. Williams v. Williams, 246 S.C. 158, 142 S.E.2d 858, 860-61 (1965); Greco v. 7-Up Bottling Co., 401 Pa. 434, 165 A.2d 5, 13 (1960); Dahle v. Goodheer, 38 N.J.Super. 210, 118 A.2d 547, 5......
-
Toole v. Toole, 19588
...Court in a proper case to review and determine whether there has been an abuse of discretion amounting to error of law. Williams v. Williams, 246 S.C. 158, 142 S.E.2d 858. The respondents contend that the question of whether the verdict was so grossly inadequate as to indicate 'caprice, pre......
-
Howell v. Davis, 21847
...new trial was the inappropriateness of the amount of damages, a new trial involving appellants would not be proper. Williams v. Williams, 246 S.C. 158, 142 S.E.2d 858 (1965). In addition, Respondent Howell did not seek a new trial against appellants. The court erred in denying the motion fo......