Bates v. Legette, 17822
| Citation | 121 S.E.2d 289,239 S.C. 25 |
| Decision Date | 14 August 1961 |
| Docket Number | No. 17822,17822 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina |
| Parties | F. Oliver BATES, Respondent, v. Stacy J. LEGETTE and Veterans Taxi Service, Appellants, and Banks Construction Company, Respondent. |
Hope & Cabaniss, Paul N. Uricchio, Jr., Moore & Mouzon, David S. Goldberg, Charleston, for appellants.
Stoney & Stoney, Figg, Gibbs, & Grimball, Barnwell, Whaley, Stevenson & Patterson, Charleston, for respondents.
This appeal arises out of an action by the respondent, F. Oliver Bates (hereafter referred to as Bates), to recover for injuries and damages sustained in a collision between his automobile, driven by him, and a taxi cab owned and driven by the appellant, Stacy J. Legette (hereafter referred to as Legette). Bates brought the action against the appellants, Legette and Veterans Taxi Service, Inc. (the latter hereafter referred to as Veterans), and the respondent, Banks Construction Company, Inc. (hereafter referred to as Banks), alleging that his injury and damage was caused by their joint and concurrent negligent and reckless acts in that (1) Legette, while operating his taxi cab at an excessive rate of speed, as the agent of Veterans, drove it across the center line of the highway immediately into the path of the automobile of Bates, and (2) Banks, having the highway upon which the collision took place under his control for construction and repair pursuant to a contract with the State Highway Department, failed to erect proper warnings and maintain proper safety precautions for the protection of the travelling public, as it was required to do.
Legette, Veterans and Banks filed separate answers to the complaint, in all of which general denials were entered and pleas of contributory negligence and recklessness interposed. Additionally, Legette brought a counterclaim against Bates and a cross action against Banks to recover damages sustained by him in the collision; the counterclaim against Bates based upon his alleged negligence and recklessness in the operation of his automobile, and the cross action against Banks based upon its alleged negligence and recklessness in failing to maintain signs or flagmen for the protection of the public travelling over the highway.
During the trial of the case Legette, Veterans and Banks, each, made timely motions for a non suit and directed verdict, all of which were denied, except that of Banks for a directed verdict in its favor, which was granted. The jury returned a verdict for Bates against Legette and Veterans for both actual and punitive damages. Their subsequent motions for judgment in their favor notwithstanding the verdict or, in the alternative, for a new trial were denied, and they have appealed from the order denying such motions.
The appellants charge error on the part of the trial Court (1) in refusing to grant their motions for a directed verdict, (2) in refusing to grant Legette's motion for a new trial, and (3) in directing a verdict in favor of the respondent Banks. They have filed separate exceptions and the appeal of Legette will be considered first. The exceptions by Legette, that the Court erred in refusing his motion for a directed verdict and in directing a verdict for the respondent Banks, may be considered together, as both involve a review of rulings by the trial Court relative to the presence or absence of testimony to sustain the allegations of negligence and recklessness on the part of Legette and Banks, and contributory negligence and recklessness on the part of Bates.
The collision, out of which this action arose, occurred about 9:30 A.M., on Saturday, August 2, 1958, on U. S. Highway No. 17, approximately four-tenths of a mile east of the Cooper River Bridge, the highway at that point running in an east-west direction. At the time, Banks was improving a 2.4 mile section of the highway pursuant to a contract with the State Highway Department. The collision occurred on the section of highway under construction.
The improvement to the highway consisted of the widening of the then existing 22 foot concrete roadway to a 70 foot asphalt surfaced roadway with concrete curbs and gutters. At the time of the collision construction had reached the stage where the curbing had been completed and asphalt placed on the widened areas, with the asphalt in some areas extending from curb to curb. In other areas the asphalt had been placed on the widened areas but not over the old roadway, leaving it exposed. Where the collision occurred the old roadway was exposed for a distance of approximately 500 feet. While the asphalt had been put in place on the widened areas, there is testimony that it was rough and travel permitted over it only to aid in packing the roadbed. Traffic was maintained over the highway during construction and the old roadway was kept open for its use.
On the morning of August 2, 1958 Bates was proceeding in a westerly direction toward Charleston, travelling on the old roadway of U. S. Highway No. 17 through the section under construction. At the time Legette was proceeding in an easterly direction, also travelling on the old roadway. Both were adhering to the old roadway through the area under construction and were travelling through the aforesaid 500 foot section, where the center line of the old roadway was clearly marked by a white line with solid parallel yellow lines on each side of the white line, with signs in place warning drivers approaching from either direction that there must be right of the white and yellow lines. Legette says that he turned to his left of the center line of the old roadway to avoid Bates who was on his (Legette's) side of the road and the collision occurred when Bates suddenly cut back in front of him. Bates, however, says that he was at all times to his right of the center line of the old roadway and Legette for no reason drove to his left of the center thereof when the collision occurred. There was some testimony of excessive speed on the part of both.
In widening the highway through the area, the old roadway did not follow the center of the new construction due to the effort to eliminate some of the existing curves. Where the collision occurred most of the widening was done to the north side of the old roadway or to Bates' right. The testimony shows that Bates was travelling to his left of the center of the 70 foot area comprising the proposed new roadway, but to his right of the center of the old roadbed. The testimony further shows that Legette was travelling to his right of the center of the 70 foot section under construction but that the collision occurred to his left of the center of the old roadway. The new roadway had not been completed and there were no markings on the road to designate the center line thereof, but the center of the old roadway was clearly marked, as heretofore stated. On the morning in question traffic was permitted, if it chose, to travel over the entire 70 foot width of the new roadway as no construction work was in progress at that time.
Legette contends that, since Bates was travelling to the left of the center of the 70 foot area comprising the new roadway, Bates was on the wrong side of the highway and that this caused the collision. On the other hand, Bates contends that the old roadway constituted the way for travel through the construction area and that the collision was caused by the act of Legette in crossing over the center line thereof into his lane of travel. Most of the controversy between Legette and Bates concerns the location of the roadway for travel through the construction area. The trial judge ruled that the old roadway was the route for travel in the area in question, so instructed the jury, and the rights, liabilities and duties of Legette and Bates were determined accordingly.
We think that the trial judge was correct in so ruling, under the facts...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
FULTON BY FULTON v. Westvaco Corp.
...to his own methods, without being subject to the control of his employer except as to the result of his work." Bates v. Legette, 239 S.C. 25, 121 S.E.2d 289, 293 (1961). An employee is one who "represents the will of that other, not only as to the result, but also as to the means by which t......
-
Allen v. Zurich Ins. Co.
...to control and direct the particular work or undertaking, as to the manner or means of its accomplishment...." Bates v. Legette, 239 S.C. 25, 34-35, 121 S.E.2d 289, 293 (1961). This court, like most, has recognized four factors bearing on the crucial right of control. These are (1) direct e......
-
Young v. Warr
...control and an interest in the performance of the work other than the finished product. * * *'. 2 C.J.S. Agency § 2d. Bates v. Legette, 239 S.C. 25, 121 S.E.2d 289. See also the cases of Carter's Dependents v. Palmetto State Life Ins. Co., 209 S.C. 67, 38 S.E.2d 905; Gomillion v. Forsythe, ......
-
Sabbagha v. Celebrezze
...to control particular work in manner or means of its accomplishment establishes relationship of master and servant." Bates v. Legette, 239 S.C. 25, 121 S.E.2d 289, quoting 56 Corpus Juris Secundum, "Master and Servant", Section 3, Sub-section (1): "The relation of master and servant exists ......