Johnson v. Atlantic Coast Line R. R.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Johnson v. Atlantic Coast Line R. R.

107 S.E. 31, 116 S.C. 135, 1921 S.C. LEXIS 53

CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina

DecidedApril 13, 1921

Docket10606

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 107 S.E. 31 (Johnson v. Atlantic Coast Line R. R.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of South Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Johnson v. Atlantic Coast Line R. R., 107 S.E. 31, 116 S.C. 135, 1921 S.C. LEXIS 53 (S.C. 1921).

Pincite

Opinions

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Watts.

This is an appeal from a directed verdict in favor of defendant-respondent by County Judge Whaley.

1 This is the second appeal in the case (112 S. C. 47, 99 S. E. 755.) The exceptions, eight in number, complain of error on the part of his Honor in so deciding. Appellant says, also, that plaintiff withdrew any claim for punitive damages. In the former decision this Court decided that “the issue of negligence should have been sent to the jury.” As the facts at this time are practically the same as on the former appeal, that as to negligence becomes the law of the case. The evidence in the case shows that the instrument furnished was frazzled, and plaintiff might have had the right to assume that the instrument furnished was in normal condition.

The exceptions raise two questions, that his Honor was in error in holding that the plaintiff was negligent, and assumed the risk.

2, 3 The only inference that can be inferred from the evidence is that the plaintiff was engaged in interstate comm¡eree. But both the questions of negligence and assumption of risk should have been submitted to the jury, as more than one inference could have been drawn. T'he exceptions are sustained, and judgment reversed.

*140 than one inference could have been drawn. The exceptions are sustained, and judgment reversed.

Mr. Chief Justice Gary and Mr. Justice Fraser concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Watts.

This is an appeal from a directed verdict in favor of defendant-respondent by County Judge Whaley.

1 This is the second appeal in the case (112 S. C. 47, 99 S. E. 755.) The exceptions, eight in number, complain of error on the part of his Honor in so deciding. Appellant says, also, that plaintiff withdrew any claim for punitive damages. In the former decision this Court decided that “the issue of negligence should have been sent to the jury.” As the facts at this time are practically the same as on the former appeal, that as to negligence becomes the law of the case. The evidence in the case shows that the instrument furnished was frazzled, and plaintiff might have had the right to assume that the instrument furnished was in normal condition.

The exceptions raise two questions, that his Honor was in error in holding that the plaintiff was negligent, and assumed the risk.

2, 3 The only inference that can be inferred from the evidence is that the plaintiff was engaged in interstate comm¡eree. But both the questions of negligence and assumption of risk should have been submitted to the jury, as more than one inference could have been drawn. T'he exceptions are sustained, and judgment reversed.

*140 than one inference could have been drawn. The exceptions are sustained, and judgment reversed.

Mr. Chief Justice Gary and Mr. Justice Fraser concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

107 S.E. 31, 116 S.C. 135, 1921 S.C. LEXIS 53, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/johnson-v-atlantic-coast-line-r-r-sc-1921.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack