Case Name: SCOTT v. ATLANTIC COAST LINE R. CO.
Court: Supreme Court of South Carolina
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1916-09-12
Citations: 105 S.C. 385
Docket Number: 9504
Parties: SCOTT v. ATLANTIC COAST LINE R. CO.
Judges: Mr. Chief Justice Gary and Mr. Justice Fraser concur in the opinion of the Court.
Reporter: South Carolina Reports
Volume: 105
Pages: 385–393

Head Matter:
9504
SCOTT v. ATLANTIC COAST LINE R. CO.
(89 S. E. 1038.)
1. Pleading — Amendment—New Cause op Action. — In a railroad conductor’s action against his employer for personal injury, where the defendant, under the pleadings, might have shown as a complete defense that plaintiff was injured in a different way than that alleged, the allowance of an amendment to the complaint so as to conform to the proof and allege a new and independent act of negligence, to defendant’s surprise, was error.
2. New Trial — Grounds—Surprise.—The trial Court was in error in not withdrawing the case from the jury when he was shown that the amendment in the complaint had taken defendant by surprise, and was correct in afterwards granting a new trial.
3. Appeal and Error- — Remand — Jurisdiction op Lower Court — Motion for New Trial. — Where there was a verdict for the plaintiff, and the.defendant’s motion on the minutes of the Circuit Court for a new trial was granted on the ground of error in allowing plaintiff to amend his complaint, the Circuit Court on remand will have no jurisdiction to determine the other grounds of the motion.
Before Shipp, J., Florence, April, 1915.
Affirmed.
Action by Otis K. Scott against the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company. Judgment for plaintiff. From an order granting a new trial, plaintiff appeals.
The facts are stated in the dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice Gage, reported herewith.
Messrs. J. W. Ragsdale and Whiting & Baker, for appellant,
cite: As to amendment of complaint: 101 S. C. 86; 51 S. C. 412; 81 S. C. 564; 83 S. C. 557; 87 S. C. 239; 85 S. C. 450; 86 S. C. 98; 55 S. C. 98; 74 S. C. 236; 32 S. C. 117; 82 S. C. 410; 101 S. C. 29. Cause of action: 64 S. C. 491; 74 S. C. 236; 33 R. I. 289; A. & E. Ann. Cas. 1913d, 730 and 743. Cases of injuries to employees: 145 U. S. 593; 42 Am. St. Rep. 345; 94 Ky. 169; 21 S. W. 649; 110 N. Y. 646; 17 N. E. 733; 1 Ga. App. 88; 58 S. E. 252; 38 Tex. Civ. App. 81; 85 S. W. 62; 40 S. W. 1043 ; 56 Oregon 495 ; 108 Pac. 201; 68 Ga. 228; 56 Fed. 458; 12 U. S. App. 426; 5 C. C. A. 557; 199 Mass. 421; 85 N. E. 474; 20 Okla. 538; 120 Pac. 253; 156 Pac. 404 ; 45 Ind. App. 649; 90 N. E. 783; 91 N. E. 571; 19 S. W. 667; 124 Ky. 517; 99 S. W. 609; 158 Mich. 8; 122 N. W. 371; 137 Wis. 506; 118 N. W. 350; 119 N. W. 289; 34 S. W. 298; 18 Wash. 368; 51 Pac. 402, 1046; 18 R. I. 598; 29 Atl. 300; 43 Mont. 141; 115 Pac. 40; 113 Ga. 862; 39 S. E. 555; 136 Ga. 351; 71 S. E. 470; 21 S. D. 504; 110 N. W. 832; 72 Neb. 900; 101 N. W. 1009; 58 N. H. 137; 83 Ala. 453; 3 So. 813; 78 Ga. 525; 3 S. E. 355; 108 Ky. 47; 55 S. W. 716; 57 Hun. 585; 10 N. Y. S. 413; 122 Mo. App. 177; 98 S. W. 14; 34 S. W. 165; 123 Ga. 697; 51 S. E. 610; 72 S. C. 236; 54 S. E. 375, 39 Tex. Civ. App. 37; 87 S. W. 202; 31 App. Div. 305; 52 N. Y. S. 613; 141 App. Div. 372; 126 N. Y. S. 211; 58 N. H. 336; 99 App. Div. 236; 90 N. Y. S. 1023; 15 N. D. 294; 107 N. W. 197; 9 Ga. App. 667; 72 S. E. 65. South Carolina rule: Code Civ. Proc. 220; 3 S. C. 401, 410; 6 S. C. 130; 96 S. C. 18.
Mr. P. L,. Willcox, for respondent,
cites: As to appealable orders: 92 S. C. 361; 91 S. C. 337 and 454; 93 S. C. 575; 98 S. C. 466.
September 12, 1916.

Opinion:
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Justice Watts.
There is no doubt that the defendant was taken by surprise, and to allow the trial to proceed under such circumstances is simply to allow the plaintiff when he fails to make out his case by the specifications of negligence set out in his complaint, or when they are met by evidence of defendant, and under some view of the evidence a new and independent act of negligence is established to amend so as to conform to the proof would work untold prejudice and wrong to the defendant.
The defendant was called upon to answer certain specifications of negligence. Under the pleadings it would have been justified in showing that it did injure the plaintiff, but in a different way than that alleged, and this would have been a complete defense. To allow the amendment asked for under the circumstances of the case would be far-reaching in its effect and bring about in every case a motion to amend after the testimony was in so as to introduce a new and independent specification of negligence. The defendant would have to prepare a defense not to meet the specifications of negligence set out, but all manner of conjectural negligence that could be imagined and retained in the mind of the plaintiff's attorney until he got ready to spring it, and ask for an amendment after all the evidence was in.
Judge Shipp was in error in allowing the amendment, and not withdrawing case from the jury when he was informed it took counsel for defendant by surprise, and was correct afterwards in granting the new trial. Neither do I see how- he has jurisdiction to hear and determine the other grounds made for a new trial. This Court could remand it to him to ascertain what probable ruling he might have made, but he is now without juris diction, power, or authority to determine the motion made before him in the minutes of the Court.
I think the judgment should be affirmed.
It is so ordered.
Mr. Chief Justice Gary and Mr. Justice Fraser concur in the opinion of the Court.