Martin v. Martin

• Decision Date: 04 March 1974
• Docket Number: No. 19781,19781
• Citation: 203 S.E.2d 385,262 S.C. 168
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: Victoria MARTIN, Respondent, v. James MARTIN, Appellant.

Page 385

203 S.E.2d 385

262 S.C. 168

Victoria MARTIN, Respondent, v. James MARTIN, Appellant.

No. 19781.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

March 4, 1974.

McGowan, Nettles, Keller & Eaton, Florence, for appellant.

Gasque & Seals, Marion, for respondent.

PER CURIAM:

In this guest-passenger case the respondent-wife obtained a judgment for both actual and punitive damages against her appellant-husband. The accident giving rise to the litigation occurred between the hours of 7:00 and 8:00 p.m. on the night of January 3, 1971, in the front yard of the residence of the parties. Such residence is located on the west side of Highway 41 at Centenary in the County of Marion. The parties had been visiting in the neighborhood some two miles south of the residence travelling in a 1969 Ford pickup truck operated by the husband. Upon returning from their visit, and after entering a circular driveway in the front yard of their home, the wife fell out of the right-hand door of the pickup truck and sustained injuries of consequence.

Appellant states and argues eleven questions, the first being his contention that the evidence was insufficient to carry the issue of liability to the jury. We agree that such contention is meritorious and such conclusion will render unnecessary the discussion of any other questions raised. It is well settled by virtue of Code Section 46--801 that the only duty an operator owes to a guest-passenger is not to injure the guest intentionally, willfully or by conduct which is in reckless disregard of the rights of the passenger. See numerous cases collected West's South Carolina Digest, Automobiles, k181(1). It is, of course, elementary that in considering whether the trial court should have directed a verdict in favor of a defendant, the evidence and all inferences reasonably deducible therefrom have to be viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. If is also settled that if more than one reasonable inference can be drawn from the evidence the case must be submitted to the jury, but if the evidence is susceptible of only one reasonable inference any question involved will no longer be a question for the jury but one of law for the court. In an action controlled by Code Section 46--801, the burden of proof is upon the passenger to establish that the sustained injuries were the proximate result of the owner's intentional, willful or reckless conduct in the operation of the automobile.

We proceed to review the evidence and the inferences reasonably deducible therefrom in the light of the foregoing principles. The plaintiff-wife was the only witness who testified as to the actual accident, and if she is to prevail, liability has to be predicated upon her testimony and, of course, any proved circumstances corroborative thereof. The testimony relied upon by counsel for the respondent as tending to establish liability is quoted from the respondent's brief, as follows:

'Q. What were you riding in?

'A. Well, we were riding in a Ford pickup. And we had started home, and he was driving along, ordinarily, reckon, and as he come to the driveway there was coming a car behind him. So he speeded up and he swered the truck in and there was a hole in the driveway which throwed me back and fourth unexpected, and I fell out.

'Q. Did you fall all of the way out?

'A. Yes, sir, I hit the dirt.

'Q. And what did he do then?

'A. Well, as soon as he could stop he run back and picked me up and helped me in the house.

'Q. All right, ma'am, did he make any statement as to what happened, or what caused the accident?

'A. Well, he said he was trying to get off of the road before the car come up too close behind him. That's all he said.

'Q. Did he drive in the driveway that night in the usual way?

'A. No, sir. He whirled off of the pavement and there were holes in the driveway and then I fell out.

'Q. How deep were the holes in the driveway?

'A. Some of them were this deep. (Witness indicating)

'Q. Stand up so the jury can see what you are indicating.

'A. About this deep.'

(There is nothing in the record to show just how deep the holes were indicated to be by the witness, apparently using her hands.)

This testimony, of course, has to be viewed in connection with the remainder of the wife's testimony and admitted facts appearing in the record. Upon cross-examination it was brought out from the wife that the holes in the driveway she referred to extended from one end of the driveway to the other, that the entire driveway was a 'wishy-washy road' just like it had been for a considerable time and that the condition thereof was well known to her. She testified that the truck had proceeded some two truck lengths of more into the driveway before hitting the hole which allegedly caused the door to come open. Although she testified, as above quoted, that she was thrown back and forth suddenly upon hitting the hole, she was frank to admit on cross-examination that the injuries sustained resulted from the door coming open and her falling out. There is no testimony on her part to the effect that she was thrown against, or out of, the door as a result of the turning movement of the truck. There is uncontradicted evidence that there was no discernible defect in the door or the lock thereto and if there was failure to securely close the same, such failure was on the part of the wife and...