Case Name: GORTZ v. RAVENEL
Court: Supreme Court of South Carolina
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1924-01-14
Citations: 127 S.C. 505
Docket Number: 11402
Parties: GORTZ v. RAVENEL
Judges: Mr. Chief Justice Gary concurs.
Reporter: South Carolina Reports
Volume: 127
Pages: 505–507

Head Matter:
11402
GORTZ v. RAVENEL
(121 S. E., 369)
1. Appeal and Error — Admission op Evidence Ti-iat Was Dater Stricken Out Held Not Reversible Error. — In an automobile collision accident, the admission of evidence concerning liability insurance and conversations concerning a compromise, which was later stricken out and the jury instructed to disregard it, held not reversible error. ■
2. Appeal and Error — Erroneous Instruction as to Contributory Negligence Held Harmless in View op Award op Punitive Damages. — In an automobile collision action, an erroneous instruction regarding contributory negligence held harmless, in view of the jury’s finding of actual and punitive damages.
3. Negligence — Contributory Negligence no Defense to Wantonness. — Contributory negligence is no defense to wantonness.
Before Rice, J., Charleston, 1923.
Affirmed.
Action by C. F. Gortz against Frank Ravenel. Judgment for plaintiff and defendant appeals.
Messrs. Logan & Grace and John I. Cosgrove, for appellant,
cite: Error to admit testimony that defendant was protected by indemnity insurance: 118 S. E., 802; 113 S. E-, 118; 92 S. C., 236. Offers of compromise incompetent: 108 S. C., 198; 89 S. C., 286; 84 S. C., 192; 209 Pac., 977.' Rule of Court sufficient to take testimony from the jury: 117 S. C., 51. Contributory negligence: 56 S. C., 95; 61 S. C., 83.
Mr. J. A. Patla, for respondent,
cites: Statements by defendant admissible as admissions even though they made some reference to settlement: 22 L. R. A., 763; 19 S. C., 95. Directions of judge to disregard testimony sufficient: 94 S. C., 145. Charge as a zvhole correct: 103 S. C., 47. Opportunity given to defendant to except to charge and failing to do so he cannot now complain: 117 S. E., 590; 107 S. C., 216. Verdict responsive to testimony: 109 S. C., 245; 98 S. C., 262.
January 14, 1924.
Petition for rehearing dismissed February 11, 1924.

Opinion:
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Justice Watts.
"This is an appeal from a judgment entered upon a verdict in favor of the above-named respondent in the sum of $2,400.
"The injuries to' plaintiff for which damages are claimed arose out of a collision between an automobile in which plaintiff was riding and one driven at the time by defendant. The accident, occurred on the Meeting Street Road outside of the City of Charleston about 12:30 a. m. on June 9, 1920.
"The appeal involves errors in the admission of prejudicial testimony relating to offers of compromise by defendant; relating also to statements by him that he carried insurance on the automobile which caused the alleged injuries to plaintiff; and, in addition, erroneous and prejudicial instructions to the jury."
There are three exceptions. Exceptions I and II allege error in the admission, over objection of defendant, of testimony of plaintiff's witness C. O. Thompson, regarding offers of compromise made by the defendant, and that he carried insurance on the automobile. Those exceptions are overruled. His Honor ruled that the question of compromise was incompetent; and as to the insurance on the automobile, he instructed the jury to disregard it; the objection of defendant's counsel to the Court was "on the ground that any conversation as to compromise is not admissible." The record shows that the testimony objected to by the defendant was admitted, but was immediately stricken out, and the jury then and there were instructed that the reference to insurance had nothing to do with the case, and that they should not pay any attention to the statements regarding compromise.
The third exception alleges error on the part of his Honor in his definition of contributory negligence. His Honor's definition was faulty, but harmless in view of the fact that the jury's verdict was for both actual and punitive damages, and contributory negligence is no defense to wantonness.
All exceptions are overruled, and judgment affirmed. •
Mr. Chief Justice Gary concurs.