Court Opinion

ID: 9614987
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 04:30:07.294081+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:03:41.053203
License: Public Domain

Sanders, Chief Judge
(concurring):
Ms. Whittle limits her theory of recovery to the argument that Southern Bell is liable for the act of its employee because it is a common carrier. She does not claim that the employee was acting within the scope of his employment. Nor does she seek to recover on any other basis. Rather, she would have us apply the rule applicable to common carriers of passengers even though Southern Bell is not a common carrier of passengers. Our Supreme Court has refused to recognize the rule except for common carriers of passengers. “We are, of course, bound by the decisions of our Supreme Court.” Carroll v. Jackson Nat’l Life Ins. Co., — S.C. —, —, 405 S.E. (2d) 425, 428 (Ct. App. 1991) (Sanders, C.J., concurring). Thus, the result we reach is preordained by the way in which the case has been presented.