Anderson v. Hampton & Branchville R. & Lumber Co.

• Decision Date: 09 March 1926
• Docket Number: 11939.
• Parties: ANDERSON v. HAMPTON & BRANCHVILLE RAILROAD & LUMBER CO.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

132 S.E. 47

134 S.C. 185

ANDERSON v. HAMPTON & BRANCHVILLE RAILROAD & LUMBER CO.

No. 11939.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

March 9, 1926

Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Hampton County; E. C Dennis, Judge.

Action by T. S. Anderson against the Hampton & Branchville Railroad & Lumber Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Geo Warren & Randolph Murdaugh, both of Hampton, for appellant.

J. W Manuel, of Hampton, for respondent.

BLEASE J.

T. S Anderson, as plaintiff, instituted suit in January, 1924, against the defendant, Hampton & Branchville Railroad & Lumber Company for personal injuries. The case was tried before his honor, Judge E. C. Dennis, and a jury, at the October, 1924, term of the court of common pleas for Hampton county, and resulted in a verdict in favor of the plaintiff.

Plaintiff alleged that he was injured when he was endeavoring to enter a passenger coach of the defendant by being thrown from the platform of the train; his main specification of negligence charged against the defendant being "that the train was negligently, carelessly, willfully, and recklessly started by defendant's agents, servants, and employees, with an unusual, sudden, and violent jerk, before plaintiff had time to get aboard."

The defendant, after putting in a general denial, pleaded contributory negligence on part of the plaintiff, alleging that plaintiff had full knowledge of the manner in which the train was operated, that he had been instructed by the defendant never to stand, ride, or remain on the platform, and that nevertheless plaintiff was standing and riding on the platform when his injuries occurred.

At the conclusion of all the testimony, the defendant moved the court for a directed verdict in its favor. It is not necessary to set out verbatim the grounds of the motion. The real contention of the defendant was that no negligence was shown against the defendant, and that in any event the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence. This motion was refused.

After the verdict, defendant moved for a new trial on practically the same grounds upon which the motion for directed verdict was asked, and urged mainly "that the only reasonable inference from the case is that the plaintiff was guilty of bringing about his own injury." The court overruled this motion.

Defendant has appealed to this court, and reversal is asked on two grounds: (1) Because of the failure of the presiding judge to direct the verdict; and (2) the refusal to grant a new trial.

This court has held that, when a motion for a directed verdict is made, the evidence in the cause must be considered most favorably to plaintiff in determining whether the directed verdict should have been granted. Crews v. Sweet, 118 S.E. 613, 125 S.C. 306, 29 A. L. R. 43. And it has been decided that, not only should questions of fact be submitted to the jury when they are in...