Quinn v. South Carolina Railway Co.

Citations

• 29 S.C. 381
• 1 L.R.A. 682
• 7 S.E. 614
• 1888 S.C. LEXIS 152

Syllabus

<p>1. What facts constitute negligence is for the jury; and therefore the judge properly refused to charge that a given state of facts would make a case of contributory negligence.</p> <p>2. The judge being requested to charge “that plaintiff could not recover exemplary damages in this case unless the jury find that the injury inflicted was caused by the wilful negligence of the company’s servants, authorized or approved by the company, and showing criminal and reckless misconduct on the part of the company,” said: “The plaintiff cannot recover exemplary damages in this case unless the jury find that the injury was caused by the malicious, oppressive, or reckless negligence of the company's servants.” Held, that in this there was no error.</p> <p>3. The trial judge properly refused to charge “that no evidence of wilful misconduct having been offered by plaintiff, the jury cannot find exemplary damages,” for there may be exemplary damages where there is no wilful misconduct, and besides, it would have been a charge on the facts. He did not err in leaving to the jury the whole matter of damages.</p> <p>4. Courts are more reluctant to grant new trials for excessive damages in actions for personal injury than in any other class of cases.</p>