Smith v. Baker

172 S.E. 767, 172 S.C. 75, 1934 S.C. LEXIS 36
CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina
DecidedFebruary 14, 1934
Docket13778
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 172 S.E. 767 (Smith v. Baker) 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
Smith v. Baker, 172 S.E. 767, 172 S.C. 75, 1934 S.C. LEXIS 36 (S.C. 1934).

Opinion

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. W. C. Cothran, Acting Associate Justice

On February 3, 1932, this action was commenced. By it the plaintiff charged negligence, carelessness, and recklessness of the defendants in the treatment received by him during and after an operation performed upon him by the defendant Dr. Archibald E. Baker, Jr., at the Baker Sanatorium, the other defendant. The plaintiff charged his now paralytic and totally disabled condition to the conduct of the defendants. The defendants denied these allegations.

At the conclusion of the evidence offered by the plaintiff, the defendants made a motion for a nonsuit upon the general ground that the allegations of the complaint were not proven by the evidence and that there was no evidence of probative value to be submitted to the jury. The motion was granted, and from the order of nonsuit this appeal is taken.

A careful study of this case convinces us that the nonsuit was improperly granted.

It is the better custom of this Court not to set forth in full those extracts from the testimony which induce the reversal of an order of nonsuit. To do so might cause undue emphasis to be placed thereon to the detriment or prejudice of one or more defendants. Consequently, we prefer to say that in our opinion there was competent testimony introduced which had such material bearing upon the allegations of the complaint as would justify submission to a jury.

*77 The judgment of this Court is that the order of nonsuit be, and the same is hereby, reversed, and the cause is remanded to the Circuit Court for trial.

Mr. Chief Justice Brease and Messrs. Justices Stab-RER, Carter and Bonham concur.

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

Related

Guest v. Breedin
257 F.2d 22 (Fourth Circuit, 1958)
Bessinger v. De Loach
94 S.E.2d 3 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1956)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
172 S.E. 767, 172 S.C. 75, 1934 S.C. LEXIS 36, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-baker-sc-1934.