Court Opinion

ID: 9585745
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 23:03:32.821974+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:24:11.203436
License: Public Domain

Littlejohn, Justice
(concurring) :
I concur in the opinion of Mr. Chief Justice Lewis.
The summary judgment rule is a good one and has well served courts and litigants in this state; it should, however, be used with caution. Relief granted under the summary judgment rule is more drastic than relief granted by a non-suit or by a directed verdict.
In determining whether a summary judgment motion should be granted, the overall picture must be viewed, and to some extent the judge is entitled to consider the credibil*389ity of the witnesses. Showing on a summary judgment is a “paper showing”, and affidavits and even depositions are not normally the best way to ascertain the truth of a matter. The rule requiring direction of a verdict and the rule requiring a summary judgment are stated differently, but the essence of the relief granted is basically the same. Ayers v. Pastime Amusement Co., 283 F. Supp. 773 (D. S. C. 1968), Sartor v. Arkansas Nat. Gas. Corp., 321 U. S. 620, 64 S. Ct. 724, 88 L. Ed. 967 (1944). In each instance, the judge holds as a matter of law that .there are no facts to be determined.
We have held that a motion for a directed verdict need not be granted even though the evidence is undisputed or uncontradicted if there is reason to discredit it. State v. Richburg, 250 S. C. 451, 158 S. E. (2d) 769 (1968). The plaintiff is never relieved of the burden of proof, but in granting the summary judgment in this case the court must weigh the difficulty of proof and the fact that the two defendants have control of virtually all of the relevant evidence of agency. In Brock v. Carolina Scenic Stages, 219 S. C. 360, 65 S. E. (2d) 468 (1961), this court held that since the defendants had control of the relevant evidence, a nonsuit should not have been granted and that the court should have at least 'required the defendants to go forward with evidence.
There are many reasons to discredit the showing made in this case on behalf of both Hallums and Howard. The testimony of Howard, the employer, and Hallums, his former employee, to the effect that there was no agency relationship between them, is subject to impeachment. Howard stands to lose a considerable sum if agency is shown. Hallums has been convicted of ordering, in cold blood, the execution of a debtor. And, he owes many debts to Howard. Howard posted a five thousand dollar bond for Hallums, provided alibi testimony for him at his trial, and, after his conviction, attempted to have him moved from prison to a more favorable location.
*390When a judge directs a verdict, in effect he says to the jury: “You must believe the evidence which has been presented.” When a judge grants a summary judgment, in effect he says: “I have no alternative but to believe the testimony which has been submitted to me by affidavits, depositions, etc., and a jury would not be justified in disbelieving such evidence.” The showing made in this case simply does not warrant the relief granted.