Court Opinion

ID: 9590265
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 23:53:13.224445+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:12:22.488824
License: Public Domain

Cureton, Judge
(concurring):
I concur with the court’s Opinion, but would supplement it. Baker’s Complaint included a claim for monies paid by him to the third party repairmen. It is manifestly implicit in such inclusion that a question existed as to whether Baker was liable for the work of the third party repairmen for whose work he claimed the right to collect.
The trial judge in refusing the request for charge made the following comments:
“Mr. Nettles, [Weaver’s counsel] you have a valid point in that regard; however, I believe the totality of the charge does cover it.”
The trial judge apparently agreed with the principle of law asked to be charged, but thought that the principle was adequately covered by his charge. The pertinent portion of the Judge’s charge is as follows:
“in this case the defendant has filed a counterclaim. He alleges and contends that the repair work was undertaken by the plaintiff for him under and (sic) arrange*484ment and agreement. One who undertakes and agrees to repair an item of personal property is liable for any damages proximately resulting from the negligent or unskillful manner in which he makes the repairs or performs the services. I charge you in this regard if the defendant contracted with the plaintiff to have the boat in question repaired, the plaintiff owed the duty to exercise and use due care in the repair of the boat and in the work undertaken by the Plaintiff.” Emphais added.)
From these instructions, the jury may well have inferred that they need only consider the work actually performéd at Baker’s shop and need not consider the responsibility of Baker for the work he arranged to have done outside his shop.
In 88 C.J.S. Trial § 266 the following pertinent language is found: “The purpose of instructions is to advise the jury as to what law is applicable to a certain state of facts in order that a just, fair and proper verdict of the case can be reached.” See Ramer v. Hughes, 131 S. C. 490, 127 S. E. 565 (1925). Our Supreme Court has said many times that no instructions should be given by the court which tenders an issue that is not supported by the pleadings and evidence. Hendricks v. American Fire & Casualty Co., 247 S. C. 479, 148 S. E. (2d) 162, 25 A.L.R. (3d) 671; Quality Concrete Products Inc. v. Thomson, 253 S. C. 579, 172 S. E. (2d) 279 (1970).
Here the pleadings implicitly raise the issue of Baker’s liability for the work of the third party repairmen and much evidence was adduced at trial on that point. I agree that it was error for the court not to have charged the requested instruction.