Court Opinion

ID: 3885417
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-07-06 09:15:26.640842+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:53:10.729527
License: Public Domain

I think that the petition should be granted. The decision, in my opinion, is wrong in principle and subversive of the doctrine thoroughly established by the decisions of this Court and all others which have considered the question. It "reaps the bearded grain in a breath." Gwynn v. Tel. Co., 69 S.C. 434;48 S.E., 460; 67 L.R.A., 111; 104 Am. St. Rep., 819. Funderburgv. R. Co., 81 S.C. 141; 61 S.E., 1075; 21 L.R.A. (N.S.), 868. Henry v. R. Co., 93 S.C. 125; 75 S.E., 1018.Walker v. Glenn, 124 S.C. 501; 117 S.E., 723. Fort v.R. Co., 64 S.C. 423; 42 S.E., 196. State v. Doig, 2 Rich., 182. State v. Alexander, 14 Rich., 253. State v. Toney,15 S.C. 412. Alvinger v. Co., 29 S.C. 265; *Page 393 7 S.E., 493; 13 Am. St. Rep., 716. Kibler v. R. Co., 62 S.C. 270;40 S.E., 556 — all of which, without exception or reservation, declare, in the language substantially of the Henry case:
"An act based on the belief that it was legal and done for the sole purpose of protecting actor's right, will not subject actor to punitive or vindictive damages."