Court Opinion

ID: 9587917
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 23:27:57.895966+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:12:56.723023
License: Public Domain

Ness, Justice
(dissenting).
While I agree that the trial court erroneously admitted the deposition in evidence without compliance with Circuit Court Rule 87, I disagree that it constituted reversible error and respectfully dissent.
The appellant, without reserving his objection to the admissibility of the deposition, presented Allen Hay, Jr.’s testimony which repeated the telephone conversation in substantial detail, in fact corroborating Duncan’s deposition in the following particulars:
(1) Duncan testified that he received a call from a representative of Holly Hill Lumber Company. (Tr. 33, ff. 131). Hay testified that he made such a call to Daniel and talked with Duncan. (Tr. 55, ff. 217).
(2) Duncan testified that before Hay spoke with him, Hay had already ascertained from the Daniel Personnel Office that Webster was employed by Daniel. (Tr. 37, ff. 147). Hay testified that he did not remember whether he had ascertained the fact of Webster’s employment or not. (Tr. 54, ff. 216).
(3) Duncan testified that Hay informed him of both Webster’s injury and his pending workmen’s compensation claim. (Tr. 37, ff. 148). Hay testified that he informed Duncan of Webster’s back injury and pending workmen’s compensation claim. (Tr. 55, ff. 218).
(4) Duncan testified that he received a phone call a few days after the initial call from Hay, inquiring as to whether Webster was still in the employ of Daniel. (Tr. 38, ff. 149-150). Hay testified that he called Duncan to determine *423whether or not Webster was still employed by Daniel. (Tr. 56, if. 222).
I believe that the testimony of Allen Hay, Jr. was sufficient to establish the material elements of the respondent’s claim.
The standard for determining whether the respondent has presented sufficient evidence to raise a jury question is whether, viewing the evidence in the record in the light most favorable to respondent, there is a complete absence of probative facts to support the conclusion reached by the jury.
Applying these standards I find there was sufficient evidence, presented by the appellant’s witness to support the jury’s conclusion. There was testimony that the agent or employee of the appellant, who was a highly trained investigator, called Daniel Construction Company and after talking to someone in the personnel office, asked to talk to Mike Duncan, who was Project Safety Engineer in the Personnel Department at Daniels, and advised him of respondent’s claims. Subsequently he again called to ascertain whether respondent was still employed at Daniels.
It is significant that these calls were made after Hay had met with the attorney for respondent and with the respondent and his wife and was permitted to question them about the alleged accident.
This Court held in Tallon v. Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company, 262 S. C. 23, 202 S. E. (2d) 16, 19 (1974):
“It is a well settled rule that the admission of improper evidence is harmless where the fact thereby sought to be shown is otherwise fully and properly established. Holder v. Sovereign Camp, 180 S. C. 242, 185 S. E. 547. This rule is here applicable.
“In the case of Eargle v. Sumter Lighting Co., 110 S. C. 560, 96 S. E. 909, 911, it was said:
‘ * * * It is immaterial from whose witnesses — whether plaintiff’s or defendant’s — the evidence in support of an element of damage or of the cause of action or defense may *424come. Either party has the right to make out or to strengthen his case or defense on the examination of the witnesses of his adversary. * * *’
“In the case of Greenville County v. Stover, 198 S. C. 240, 17 S. E. (2d) 535, 537, this Court held:
‘That proof of a plaintiff’s cause of action (where a non-suit is not granted) can be supplied by a defendant, and conversely, proof of a defendant’s defense can be supplied by a plaintiff, is a postulate which cannot be denied.’ ”
The testimony of Allen Hay, Jr. was offered by the appellant without reserving his objection. Any error in the admission of the deposition was cured by Hay’s direct testimony on the same issue.
I would affirm.