Howell v. Hairston
Supreme Court of South Carolina
1Opinion of the Court
Littlejohn, Justice:
Plaintiffs Lewis W. Howell and Mary Howell instituted this action to recover actual damages sustained by them as a result of having to provide medical care to their son Bruce on account of his being shot in the eye with an air rifle by Bob Hairston, son of the defendants, James D. Hairston and Sharon Hairston. The plaintiffs appeal from the order of the trial judge granting the defendants’ motio,n for a nonsuit.
The primary issue to be decided is whether the trial judge erred in granting the nonsuit. Because we answer this question in the affirmative, it is also necessary…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Rookard v. Atlantic & Charlotte Air Line Ry. Co.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1909
- Brown Ex Rel. Webb v. WoodSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1931
- Capps v. CarpenterSupreme Court of Kansas · 1930
- Highsaw v. CreechCourt of Appeals of Tennessee · 1933
- Phillips v. D'AmicoLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1945
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Crowley Ex Rel. Estate of Crowley v. SpiveyCourt of Appeals of South Carolina · 1985
- Bain Ex Rel. Estate of Bain v. Self Memorial HospitalCourt of Appeals of South Carolina · 1984
- Brown v. CarvillWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1998
- Crosby v. Southeast Zayre, Inc.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1980
- Dennis Ex Rel. Evans v. TimmonsCourt of Appeals of South Carolina · 1993
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.