## Facts

- Bobby Thompson owned an automobile that he furnished to his then-estranged wife, Geraldine Thompson, for family use.
- Nancy Carder was staying at Geraldine Thompson’s home.
- Geraldine Thompson asked Carder to drive the car to the store for her and entrusted Carder with the car, knowing Carder did not have a driver’s license.
- Before leaving, Carder asked Diane Player (then Diane Carmen), a minor, and James Player to ride with her, and they agreed.
- The accident occurred on a rainy night on wet pavement.
- There was evidence the car’s tires were worn slick (bald).
- There was evidence Carder was warned to slow down and warned to watch for a dog near the road.
- The dog ran in front of the car; Carder was traveling about 25 miles per hour and applied the brakes hard.
- The car skidded on the wet roadway and struck a mailbox and fence, injuring Player.
- Player sued Carder for heedlessness and recklessness in operating the car, and sued Bobby and Geraldine Thompson on theories including the family purpose doctrine and negligent entrustment.
- To show notice of the unsafe tires, Player relied on Carder’s pretrial statement describing a visit two to three weeks before the wreck to a state inspection station, where Carder heard the inspector tell Geraldine Thompson the car would not pass inspection because it needed tires, and Geraldine repeated that information to Carder.
- Player conceded the statement was not being offered against Geraldine Thompson for its truth and offered a version stripped of references to Thompson, only to show Carder had notice of the tire condition.
- The trial judge excluded the proffered statement as hearsay and also refused to allow questioning of Carder about the inspection incident when Player later called Carder as a witness, again on hearsay grounds and due to claimed prejudice to Thompson.
- At the close of Player’s evidence, the trial court granted a nonsuit for all defendants, ruling Carder was not reckless or heedless and that her conduct was not the proximate cause of Player’s injuries.
- Player appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court erred in granting a nonsuit when the evidence and reasonable inferences, viewed in the light most favorable to Player, permitted more than one reasonable inference on Carder’s recklessness/heedlessness and proximate cause.
2. Whether the trial court erred in excluding evidence about the prior inspection-station incident—Carder’s statement and related questioning—when offered to show Carder’s notice or knowledge of the bald tires rather than to prove the truth of the inspector’s assessment.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of South Carolina reversed the nonsuit and remanded for a new trial.
- The Court held that, under the nonsuit standard, the evidence (rainy conditions, slick tires, an unlicensed driver, warnings to slow down, braking and skidding) allowed differing reasonable inferences on whether Carder’s driving was heedless or reckless and whether it proximately caused Player’s injuries; those questions were for the jury.
- The Court held the trial court erred in excluding the inspection-related statement and related testimony on hearsay grounds where it was offered for the limited purpose of showing notice or knowledge of the tire condition; concerns about unfair prejudice did not justify total exclusion when the proffer limited the evidence to Carder and its notice purpose.

## Legal Principles

- On a motion for nonsuit, the trial court must view the evidence and all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party; if the evidence supports more than one reasonable inference on a material issue, the case must be submitted to the jury.
- Whether conduct amounts to negligence, heedlessness, or recklessness, and whether that conduct proximately caused the injury, are generally jury questions when the record permits competing reasonable inferences.
- An out-of-court statement offered not for the truth of what it asserts but to show notice, knowledge, or state of mind is not excluded as hearsay for that limited purpose.
- When evidence is offered for a limited, proper purpose and can be confined to reduce unfair prejudice (for example, by removing references to another party and using a limiting instruction), exclusion of the evidence in its entirety is improper.

## Conclusion

Player v. Thompson reversed a nonsuit in a one-car skid on wet pavement where there was evidence of slick tires and circumstances allowing a jury to find heedless or reckless driving and causation, and it held that testimony about a prior inspection-station refusal could be admitted for the limited purpose of showing the driver’s notice of the tire condition rather than for the truth of the inspector’s statement.


Player v. Thompson, 193 S.E.2d 531 (1972)