Sanders v. Wright

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

Sanders v. Wright

354 S.E.2d 411, 291 S.C. 516, 1987 S.C. App. LEXIS 263

CourtCourt of Appeals of South Carolina

DecidedMarch 16, 1987

Docket0905

StatusPublished

This text of 354 S.E.2d 411 (Sanders v. Wright) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of South Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Sanders v. Wright, 354 S.E.2d 411, 291 S.C. 516, 1987 S.C. App. LEXIS 263 (S.C. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

Shaw, Judge:

Appellant, Wallace Sanders, as Guardian ad Litem for Curtis Sanders, Jr., appeals from a directed verdict in his action for damages against respondents, David Wright, Jr. and Gilbert Grant, d/b/a Dodge City, and Carolina Coca-Cola Bottling Company. We reverse.

In ruling on a motion for a directed verdict, a trial court must view all evidence and all reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Ringer v. Graham, 286 S. C. 14, 331 S. E. (2d) 373 (Ct. App. 1985). The court must deny a defendant’s motion if any of the evidence tends to prove the allegations of the complaint. Ringer, 331 S. E. (2d) at 376.

The testimony in this case, viewed in the light most favorable to Sanders, shows Curtis Sanders, age two, began vomiting almost immediately after drinking some Coca-Cola from a bottle. The bottle had just been opened by his aunt, Kitty Singleton. Nothing flew into the bottle after it was opened. The child had not been sick prior to drinking the Coca-Cola. After ingesting the Coca-Cola, the child was sick for a considerable period of time and visited the hospital [518]*518twice. An insect body and insect parts were found in the bottle.

In Miller v. Atlantic Bottling Corp., 259 S. C. 278, 191 S. E. (2d) 518 (1972), the Supreme Court reversed a nonsuit on facts very similar to this case. The court wrote:

There is testimony that plaintiff, in good health before, became nauseated immediately upon consuming the beverage. While in many instances expert medical evidence would be required to determine whether an illness resulted from a particular act, we do not think that a reasonable person would necessarily require medical testimony in order to determine that the drinking and discovery of a foreign substance ... in a bottled drink most probably caused the nausea and vomiting----

191 S. E. (2d) at 520. We hold the evidence, viewed in a light most favorable to Sanders, presented a question of fact which should have been submitted to a jury for resolution. Thus, the trial court erred in directing a verdict against Sanders.

Reversed.

Gardner, and Bell, JJ., concur.

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

Shaw, Judge:

Appellant, Wallace Sanders, as Guardian ad Litem for Curtis Sanders, Jr., appeals from a directed verdict in his action for damages against respondents, David Wright, Jr. and Gilbert Grant, d/b/a Dodge City, and Carolina Coca-Cola Bottling Company. We reverse.

In ruling on a motion for a directed verdict, a trial court must view all evidence and all reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Ringer v. Graham, 286 S. C. 14, 331 S. E. (2d) 373 (Ct. App. 1985). The court must deny a defendant’s motion if any of the evidence tends to prove the allegations of the complaint. Ringer, 331 S. E. (2d) at 376.

The testimony in this case, viewed in the light most favorable to Sanders, shows Curtis Sanders, age two, began vomiting almost immediately after drinking some Coca-Cola from a bottle. The bottle had just been opened by his aunt, Kitty Singleton. Nothing flew into the bottle after it was opened. The child had not been sick prior to drinking the Coca-Cola. After ingesting the Coca-Cola, the child was sick for a considerable period of time and visited the hospital [518]*518twice. An insect body and insect parts were found in the bottle.

In Miller v. Atlantic Bottling Corp., 259 S. C. 278, 191 S. E. (2d) 518 (1972), the Supreme Court reversed a nonsuit on facts very similar to this case. The court wrote:

There is testimony that plaintiff, in good health before, became nauseated immediately upon consuming the beverage. While in many instances expert medical evidence would be required to determine whether an illness resulted from a particular act, we do not think that a reasonable person would necessarily require medical testimony in order to determine that the drinking and discovery of a foreign substance ... in a bottled drink most probably caused the nausea and vomiting----

191 S. E. (2d) at 520. We hold the evidence, viewed in a light most favorable to Sanders, presented a question of fact which should have been submitted to a jury for resolution. Thus, the trial court erred in directing a verdict against Sanders.

Reversed.

Gardner, and Bell, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

354 S.E.2d 411, 291 S.C. 516, 1987 S.C. App. LEXIS 263, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sanders-v-wright-scctapp-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack