Court Opinion

ID: 9856251
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 06:42:54.595445+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:34:19.460158
License: Public Domain

Taylor, Justice
(dissenting).
I regret exceedingly that I am unable to agree with the majority opinion in this case.
I am of the opinion that there is sufficient testimony to require the case being submitted to the jury upon the question of actual damages, bearing in mind that a scintilla of evidence, under the scintilla rule which prevails in this state, is any material evidence that if true would tend to establish the issue in the mind of a reasonable juror. Taylor v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Co., 78 S. C. 552, 59 S. E. 641; National Bank of Honea Path v. Thomar J. Barrett, Jr. & Co., 173 S. C. 1, 174 S. E. 581; Bell v. Bank of Abbeville, 211 S. C. 167, 44 S. E. (2d) 328.
*225Respondent, a man of forty-eight years of age, is definitely of the dwarfish type, his legs being only eighteen inches long. He testified that, upon boarding the train at Sumter, South Carolina, the conductor assisted him, and upon reaching Moncks Corner, his destination, he caught the conductor by the sleeve and inquired of him from which door he was expected to leave the train. The conductor denies assisting respondent upon boarding the train in Sumter, but admits that he did see him on the train and had seen him on previous occasions. Respondent’s deformity and handicap was immediately apparent to all who saw him. It therefore became the duty of the agents, employees and servants of the appellant railway company, who was a public carrier for hire, to render such assistance to respondent as might be reasonable and necessary under the circumstances. Brewer v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Co., 149 S. C. 454, 147 S. E. 596.
Respondent’s condition was not only reasonably apparent to all persons thereabout, but when he made his inquiry of the conductor, it is difficult to see how respondent’s condition could have escaped his notice. This, taken into consideration with the fact that it was a distance of eleven inches from the lower step to the box and twenty-three inches from the lower step to the ground, is evidence to be considered by the jury in determining whether or not appellant’s agents and servants were remiss in their duty in failing to render assistance to respondent.
Upon approaching the steps, respondent found two passengers behind him and not wishing to delay these passengers, he attempted to step off on to the box without assistance and without requesting any. This, however, in my opinion, does not excuse the appellant railway company for its neglect of duty in failing to render assistance. One witness testified that there was no one present to assist respondent and another testified that the conductor was approximately five feet away. Elis deformity was of an extreme nature and was *226known or should have been known to the conductor under the circumstances just related. It was, therefore, his duty to render such assistance as was reasonably necessary.
For the foregoing reasons, I am of the opinion that the evidence was sufficient to require the Trial Judge to submit the case to the jury upon the question of actual damages. I would therefore affirm the verdict as to actual damages and reverse as to punitive damages.
StukES, J., concurs.