just doctrine in South Carolina

1954But the unmistakable drift is toward the just doctrine that a wrongdoer cannot shield himself from liability by asking the law to condemn the credulity of the ignorant and unwary.” In view of the limited experience and education of respondent, and of his inability to read, we are satisfied that under the rules laid down in Shumpert v. Service Life & Health Insurance Co., supra, and Thomas v. American Workmen, supra, and in the cases cited in those two opinions, it could not be held as a matter of law that respondent here, under all the circumstances, was guilty of negligence or carelessness in

1951But the unmistakable drift is toward the just doctrine that a wrongdoer cannot shield himself from liability by asking the law to condemn the credulity of the ignorant and unwary." [ 197 S.C. 178 , 14 S.E. (2d) 887 .] On the other hand, in the O'Connor case the plaintiff testified that he informed the defendant's agent that he had suffered from gall bladder trouble and was under the care of a physician for this condition, but the agent represented to him that these facts were immaterial and of no importance, and that it was all right for him to sign an application setting forth that he was in

2005Brabham v. Southern Express Co., 124 S.C. 157 , 117 S.E. 368 (1922).

2005Brabham v. Southern Express Co., 124 S.C. 157 , 117 S.E. 368 (1922).

1969Thomas v. American Workmen, supra, 197 S. C. 178, 14 S. E. (2d) 886 .” Parks v. Morris Homes Corp., 245 S. C. 461, 467, 141 S. E. (2d) 129, 132 .