 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Hubbard v. Taylor3/20/2000
ike situation would probably result. The most common test of negligence, therefore, is whether the consequences of the alleged wrongful act were reasonably to be foreseen as injurious to others coming within the range of such acts.
. . . The existence of actionable negligence depends, not upon what actually happened, but upon what reasonably might have been expected at the time, and not by a judgment from actual consequences which were not then to be apprehended by a prudent and competent man. Id. at 521, 331 S.E.2d at 344 (citation omitted) (emphasis added).
Cf. Scott v. Greenville Pharmacy, Inc., 212 S.C. 485, 48 S.E.2d 324 (1948) (holding pharmacist's unlawful sale of barbiturates to customer resulting in addiction was not the proximate cause of customer's subsequent self-imposed harm); Crolley v. Hutchins, 300 S.C. 355, 387 S.E.2d 716 (Ct. App. 1989) (finding there was no foreseeability and no proximate causation as a matter of law where the defendant sold alcohol to the already-intoxicated plaintiff, who later attempted suicide while in jail following his arrest; the court stated the attempted suicide was an act which the defendant could not have reasonably foreseen and anticipated when he last served the plaintiff).
In this case, the mother's act of ingesting the antifreeze was too remote to be attributable to any act or omission by Taylor independent from his duty as the operator of Greenbrier.
For the foregoing reasons, the trial court's order granting summary judgment in favor of Taylor is
AFFIRMED.
HEARN, C.J., and STILWELL, J., concur.
|