Harrell v. Columbia Elec. Street Ry., Light & Power Co., 71 S.E. 359 (S.C. 1911). · Go Syfert
Search
Harrell v. Columbia Elec. Street Ry., Light & Power Co., 71 S.E. 359 (S.C. 1911). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“sensible resolution”
115 citation events (1 in the last 25 years) across 42 distinct courts.
Treatment trajectory · 1928 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1928 1977 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 9 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) United States v. Douglas Jarvis
4th Cir. · 1993 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
sensible resolution
cited Cited "see" Davila v. Weinberger
D.D.C. · 1985 · signal: see · confidence high
See Bruns, Nordeman & Co. v. National Bank & Trust Co., 394 F.2d 300 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 855 , 89 S.Ct. 97 , 21 L.Ed.2d 125 (1968).
discussed Cited "see" United States v. George N. Milhim
5th Cir. · 1983 · signal: see · confidence high
See Grogan v. United States, 394 F.2d 287, 289 (5th Cir.1967), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 830 , 89 S.Ct. 97 , 21 L.Ed.2d 100 (1968) (double jeopardy is an affirmative defense which can be waived); Leser v. United States, 358 F.2d 313, 318 (9th Cir.), cert. dismissed, 385 U.S. 802 , 87 S.Ct. 10 , 17 L.Ed.2d 49 (1966) (stipulation to substitution of alternate juror constituted waiver).
discussed Cited "see" United States v. Bifield
D. Conn. · 1980 · signal: see · confidence high
See Fullbright v. United States, 392 F.2d 432 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 830 , 89 S.Ct. 97 , 21 L.Ed.2d 101 (1968) (federal agents did not violate Fourth Amendment rights of defendants when they observed defendants’ activities in a shed on a farm with the aid of binoculars); Commonwealth v. Hernley, 216 Pa.Super. 177 , 263 A.2d 904 (1970), cert. denied, 401 U.S. 914 , 91 S.Ct. 886 , 27 L.Ed.2d 813 (1971) (FBI did not violate Fourth Amendment rights of defendants by observing events in their shop with the assistance of binoculars); see also Commonwealth v. Williams, 262 Pa.Super. 508…
discussed Cited "see" Daniels v. Murphy
E.D. Okla. · 1978 · signal: see · confidence high
See Bruns, Nordeman & Co. v. American National Bank and Trust Co., 394 F.2d 300 (2nd Cir. 1968), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 855 , 89 S.Ct. 97 , 21 L.Ed.2d 125 (1968); TPO Inc. v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., 325 F.Supp. 663 (S.D.N.Y.1971); SEC v. Briggs, 234 F.Supp. 618 (N.D.Ohio 1964); Roberts Brothers, Inc. v. Kurtz Bros., 231 F.Supp. 163 (D.N.J. 1964); Leith v. Oil Transport Co., 210 F.Supp. 877 (W.D.Pa.1962), aff’d, 321 F.2d 591 (3rd Cir. 1963).
cited Cited "see" United States v. Romano
E.D. Pa. · 1975 · signal: see · confidence high
See Fullbright v. United States, 392 F.2d 432 , 434 n. 7 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 830 , 89 S.Ct. 97 , 21 L.Ed.2d 101 (1968), 4 W.
discussed Cited "see" Eugene Anthony Nolan v. United States
10th Cir. · 1970 · signal: see · confidence high
See Fullbright v. United States, 392 F.2d 432, 435-436 (10th Cir. 1968), cert. denied 393 U.S. 830 , 89 S.Ct. 97 , 21 L.Ed.2d 101 ; United States v. Thompson, 409 F.2d 113, 117 (6th Cir. 1969); United States v. Masterson, 383 F.2d 610, 614 (2d Cir. 1967); Murray v. United States, 333 F.2d 409, 411 (10th Cir. 1964), vacated on other grounds, 380 U.S. 527 , 85 S.Ct. 1345 , 14 L.Ed.2d 266 (1965); United States v. Desist, 277 F.Supp. 690 (S.D.N.Y.1967), aff’d 384 F.2d 889 (2d Cir. 1967), aff’d on other grounds, 394 U.S. 244 , 89 S.Ct. 1030 , 22 L.Ed.2d 248 (1969).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Lornitis v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1981 · signal: compare · confidence low
Compare Williams v. United States, 391 F.2d 221 (5th Cir.1968), cert. den., 393 U.S. 830 , *459 89 S.Ct. 97 , 21 L.Ed.2d 100 (1968); United States v. Menichino, 497 F.2d 935 (5th Cir.1974); and see, generally, Kamisar, Brewer v. Williams, Massiah, and Miranda: What is Interrogation?
cited Cited "see, e.g." Steinagel v. Jacobson
S.D. Ohio · 1980 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e. g., Bruns, Nordeman & Co. v. American National Bank & Trust Company, 394 F.2d 300 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 855 , 89 S.Ct. 97 , 21 L.Ed.2d 125 (1968).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Harrell
v.
Columbia Electric Street Railway, Light and Power Co.
7921.
Supreme Court of South Carolina.
May 24, 1911.
71 S.E. 359
Messrs. Elliott Herbert , for appellant, 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 . Messrs. Weston Aycock and E.J. Best , contra, cite: Admission of cumulative evidence is within discretion of , 86 S.C.
Jones.
Cited by 1 opinion  |  Published

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 crowded because the State Fair was being held in the city; (2) in suddenly and recklessly and without warning starting said car before plaintiff had sufficient time to get into the car and be seated.

1 The first and second exceptions of defendant-appellant assign error in permitting' .the plaintiff, Mrs. Harrell, and a witness, Harry Olstein, to testify after the close of defendant’s testimony, as to matters not in reply to any testimony brought out by defendant. The testimony was merely cumulative and its admission was within the discretion of the trial court, which does not appear to have been improperly exercised. Wilson v. Moss, 79 S. C. 120.

2 After the jury had been charged and had retired to their room Judge DeVore discovered that he had inadvertently failed to instruct them as to punitive damages, and called the jury back- and charged them on that subject. This is made the basis of the fourth exception. There was no error. On the contrary it is a proper exercise of the judicial function to cure an omission to give[*99] proper instruction, as well as to withdraw an improper instruction as was done in State v. Lightsey, 43 S. C. 114.

3 The third exception alleges error in refusing defendant’s request to charge that there was no evidence in the case to support a verdict for punitive damages and the fifth exception, in part, alleges error in the refusal of motion for new trial made on the same ground.

We are unable to say that there was no testimony whatever tending to show wantonness, since there was testimony that the car was moved suddenly with a violent jerk without warning while plaintiff was upon the running board of the car and before she had time to take her seat. Whether the conductor or motorman knew, or should have known, of plaintiff’s exposed position at the time, whether due warning was given, or whether the sudden jerk was due to some peculiar or unpreventable action of the electric power, were matters of explanation for the jury.

4 The fifth exception also contends there was error in refusing new trial because the evidence showed contributory negligence of plaintiff.

5 After a careful reading of the testimony we cannot say that the cause of action for mere negligence was conclusively overthrown by the testimony tending to show negligence on the part of plaintiff, and as to the cause of action based on wilfulness the matter of contributory negligence is inapplicable.

The judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed.