From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Smith v. Korn Industries, Inc.

Supreme Court of South Carolina
Jan 15, 1980
274 S.C. 182 (S.C. 1980)

Opinion

21119

January 15, 1980.

Daniel T. Brailsford of Williams Williams, Columbia, for appellant. Stephen G. Morrison of Nelson, Mullins, Grier Scarborough, Columbia, for respondent.


January 15, 1980.


Appellant Smith appeals from a ruling excluding certain proposed testimony in a personal injury action against respondent Korn Industries, Inc. We affirm.

To corroborate his allegation that prostatitis diagnosed approximately one week after a collision with one of respondent's trucks resulted from the collision, appellant offered a friend's testimony that he had never heard appellant complain of any prostate or urinary problems prior to the collision. This type of testimony is commonly known as "negative hearsay" and is inadmissible to show the condition did not in fact exist. Sherling v. Continental Trust Co., 175 Ga. 672, 165 S.E. 650 (1932); Lake Drainage Com'rs. v. Spencer, 174 N.C. 36, 93 S.E. 435 (1917); 31A C.J.S. Evidence § 193(b) (1964). Since this was the purpose for which the proposed testimony was offered, we affirm the trial court's ruling.

Affirmed.

LITTLEJOHN, RHODES and GREGORY, JJ., concur.

LEWIS, C.J., concurs in result.


Summaries of

Smith v. Korn Industries, Inc.

Supreme Court of South Carolina
Jan 15, 1980
274 S.C. 182 (S.C. 1980)
Case details for

Smith v. Korn Industries, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:Walker L. SMITH, Jr., Appellant, v. KORN INDUSTRIES, INC., Respondent

Court:Supreme Court of South Carolina

Date published: Jan 15, 1980

Citations

274 S.C. 182 (S.C. 1980)
262 S.E.2d 27

Citing Cases

Edwards v. Guardian Life Ins. of Am.

The second and third statements' admissibility turns on whether Guardian's negative-hearsay theory is valid.…