Case Name: George Odell COOPER, a person noncompos mentis, by Mose Cooper, Jr., his Guardian ad Litem, Appellant, v. Richard Ernest DRIGGERS, Respondent
Court: Supreme Court of South Carolina
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1981-05-13
Citations: 276 S.C. 299
Docket Number: 21450
Parties: George Odell COOPER, a person noncompos mentis, by Mose Cooper, Jr., his Guardian ad Litem, Appellant, v. Richard Ernest DRIGGERS, Respondent.
Judges: Lewis, C. J., and Ness and Gregory, JJ., concur.
Reporter: South Carolina Reports
Volume: 276
Pages: 299–301

Head Matter:
21450
George Odell COOPER, a person noncompos mentis, by Mose Cooper, Jr., his Guardian ad Litem, Appellant, v. Richard Ernest DRIGGERS, Respondent.
(277 S. E. (2d) 893)
E. LeRoy Nettles, of Nettles, Smith, Turbeville & Red-deck, Lake City, for appellant.
James C. McLeod, Jr., and Hugh L. Willcox, Jr., of Will-cox, Hardee, O’Farrell, McLeod, Buyck & Baker, Florence, for respondmt.
May 13, 1981.

Opinion:
Littlejohn, Justice:
This is an action for personal injuries sustained when the defendant's vehicle came in contact with the plaintiff, a pedestrian, in the middle of the highway in the nighttime. It was tried before a jury and resulted in a verdict in favor of the defendant. Plaintiff has appealed. We affirm.
The plaintiff takes ten exceptions to the judge's charge. Four issues relative to the charge are argued. All other exceptions are deemed abandoned. The main argument is directed to the charge on the law of the doctrine of the last clear chance. This doctrine is not applicable in every case where contributory negligence is pled. It is appli cable only when and if the defendant sees that a negligent plaintiff is in a predicament from which he may not extricate himself and the defendant has an opportunity to avoid the injury in spite of the conduct of the plaintiff. A review of the record before us convinces the court that the defendant did not have the last clear chance to avoid the injury and, accordingly, the doctrine of the last clear chance was simply inapplicable under the evidence.
Other attacks on the charge assert no prejudicial error warranting a new trial.
Affirmed.
Lewis, C. J., and Ness and Gregory, JJ., concur.
Harwell, J., dissents.