Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1922

Edwards v. Seaboard Air Line Railway Co.

Supreme Court of South Carolina · Decided July 25, 1922 · Gary

113 S.E. 134; 120 S.C. 294; 1922 S.C. LEXIS 132 (South Eastern Reporter)

Counsel

Mr. M.C. Woods , for appellant, cites: Passenger on a mixed freight and passenger train takes passage subject to delays: 64 S.C. 423 . Schedules not guaranteed: 84 S.C. 175 .. Messrs. Mullins Hughes and Henry Buck , for respondent, cite: Duty of carrier as to waiting rooms: 1 Civ. Code 1912, Sec. 3266. Violation of Statute sufficient to take case to the jury: 106 S.C. 123 . Who is passenger: 81 S.C. 277 . Care to which passenger is entitled: 88 S.C. 477 . Defendant sold tickets and knew plaintiff was to take train: 88 S.C. 421 . Punitive damages properly submitted to jury: 69 S.C. 117 ; 65 S.C. 99 ; 91 S.C. 71 .

Opinion of the Court

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Chief Justice Gary.

This is an action for damages, in which the jury rendered a verdict for the plaintiff, in the sum of $100 actual damages and $600 punitive damages.

At the conclusion of the testimony, the defendant’s attorneys made a motion that the issue as to punitive damages be withdrawn from the jury, on the ground that there was no testimony from which the jury might infer that there had been a willful and wanton invasion of the plaintiff’s right by this defendant. The motion was refused, and the sole exception in the case is as follows:

“Because his Honor erred, it is respectfully submitted, in refusing defendant’s motion for a verdict as to punitive damages; it being respectfully submitted that there was no evidence from which the jury could reasonably infer that there had been a willful and wanton invasion of plaintiff’s rights,' or such conscious failure to observe due care as would amount to wilfulness.”

As the facts are somewhat complicated, it will be necessary to report the complaint and answer (omitting the formal allegations).

*317 A careful consideration of the testimony satisfies this Court that the ground upon which the defendant appealed is not sustained by the testimony.

Affirmed.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.