From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Snell v. Columbia Gun Exchange, Inc.

Supreme Court of South Carolina
May 13, 1981
276 S.C. 301 (S.C. 1981)

Summary

defining reasonable diligence as requiring an injured party to act with promptness where circumstances of an injury would put a person of common knowledge and experience on notice that some claim may exist

Summary of this case from American Legion v. Horry County 577

Opinion

21451

May 13, 1981.

J. Leeds Barroll, IV, of Rogers, Fullwood, Duncan Barroll, Lexington, for appellant. John Choate, of Nelson, Mullins, Grier Scarborough, Columbia, for respondent.


May 13, 1981.


This is an appeal from summary judgment granted to respondent. We affirm.

Appellant brought action for personal injuries sustained on August 11, 1972, when a pistol which he had earlier purchased from the respondent accidentally discharged. The action was commenced by service of Summons and Complaint upon the respondent on December 20, 1978, six years and four months after the accidental shooting. Upon motion of the respondent, the court below granted summary judgment upon the ground that action was barred by Sections 15-3-530(5) and 15-3-535, Code of Laws of South Carolina, 1976. The former section establishes a six year limitation for actions arising from injury to the person and the latter section more specifically requires action to be commenced "within six years after the person knew or by the exercise of reasonable diligence should have known that he had a cause of action."

Section 15-3-535 is of recent date and has not heretofore been construed by this Court. The exercise of reasonable diligence means simply that an injured party must act with some promptness where the facts and circumstances of an injury would put a person of common knowledge and experience on notice that some right of his has been invaded or that some claim against another party might exist. The statute of limitations begins to run from this point and not when advice of counsel is sought or a full-blown theory of recovery developed.

We have no difficulty in applying the language of Section 15-3-535 to the facts of this case. Where as here a pistol accidentally and unexplainably discharges causing injury, the injured party or his representative is thereby placed on notice that a defect in the weapon is possible. From that point on, reasonable diligence is required to determine if a cause of action may exist. Six years is ample time to discover any such cause, and failure to do so within the statutory period bars recovery in the absence of other legally recognized disabilities.


Summaries of

Snell v. Columbia Gun Exchange, Inc.

Supreme Court of South Carolina
May 13, 1981
276 S.C. 301 (S.C. 1981)

defining reasonable diligence as requiring an injured party to act with promptness where circumstances of an injury would put a person of common knowledge and experience on notice that some claim may exist

Summary of this case from American Legion v. Horry County 577
Case details for

Snell v. Columbia Gun Exchange, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:Walter LaVerne SNELL, Appellant, v. COLUMBIA GUN EXCHANGE, INC., Respondent

Court:Supreme Court of South Carolina

Date published: May 13, 1981

Citations

276 S.C. 301 (S.C. 1981)
278 S.E.2d 333

Citing Cases

Moriarty v. Garden Sanctuary Church of God

The cases typically state that the statute of limitations "begins to run" on the date the plaintiff either…

Hinson v. Owens-Illinois, Inc.

This cat scan positively revealed asbestosis. In view of the above facts and circumstances and viewing all…