Harrell v. Columbia Electric Street Railway, Light & Power Co.
Supreme Court of South Carolina
Before DeVore, J., Richland, May, 1910. Action by R. E. Harrell and Mattie Harrell, his wife, against Columbia Electric Street Railway, Eight and Power Company. Defendant appeals. cite: Failure to see passenger under circumstances here is not negligence: 28 S. E. 508; 85 S. C. 422, 457; 67 S. E. 66. Evidence does not warrant vindictive damages: 61 S. C. 189; 65 S. C. 330; 38 App.
Read the full summary
Before DeVore, J., Richland, May, 1910. Action by R. E. Harrell and Mattie Harrell, his wife, against Columbia Electric Street Railway, Eight and Power Company. Defendant appeals. cite: Failure to see passenger under circumstances here is not negligence: 28 S. E. 508; 85 S. C. 422, 457; 67 S. E. 66. Evidence does not warrant vindictive damages: 61 S. C. 189; 65 S. C. 330; 38 App. Div., N. Y. 207; 79 S. C. 211; 51 S. E. 570; 60 S. C. 74; 84 S. C. 484; 34 S. C. 324. cite: Admission of cumulative evidence is within discretion of Court: '76 S. C. 32, 542; 66 S. C. 546; 79 S. C. 120. issue of…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Chief Justice Jones.
The plaintiff, Mattie Harrell, joining her husband, R. E. Harrell, in this suit, recovered of the defendant company a judgment of $5,000, for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained by her on October 30, 1907, in the city of Columbia, S. C., at the intersection of Main and Taylor streets, by being thrown from the running, board of defendant’s car, through the negligence and wanton conduct of defendant: (1) in failing to have the guard rail down on the west side of its car going north up Main street, at that time usually…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Wilson v. MossSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1908
3Cited by1 opinion
- Goethe v. BrowningSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1928