Beverly v. Sarvis

• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: BUSSEY; TAYLOR
• Citation: Beverly v. Sarvis, 144 S.E.2d 220, 246 S.C. 470 (S.C. 1965)
• Decision Date: 23 September 1965
• Docket Number: No. 18403,18403
• Parties: Wendell R. BEVERLY, a Minor, By and Through R. B. Beverly, His Guardian Ad Litem, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Heyward E. SARVIS, Respondent, and Laurence S. Barringer, Jr., Appellant.

Page 220

144 S.E.2d 220

246 S.C. 470

Wendell R. BEVERLY, a Minor, By and Through R. B. Beverly His Guardian Ad Litem, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Heyward E. SARVIS, Respondent and Laurence S. Barringer, Jr., Appellant.

No. 18403.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

Sept. 23, 1965.

Burroughs & Green, Conway, for appellant.

George W. Keels, Florence, for respondent.

J. Reuben Long, Conway, plaintiff-respondent.

BUSSEY, Justice.

In this action the respondent, Beverly, sought to recover from the respondent, Sarvis, and the appellant, Barringer, damages for personal injuries sustained in an automobile collision. Beverly at the time of the collision was riding in an automobile owned by his mother, and being operated by Sarvis, which said automobile collided with one operated by Barringer. Sarvis filed a cross-complaint against his co-defendant Barringer, and, on the trial of the case, the jury returned verdicts favorable to both Beverly and Sarvis against the appellant Barringer.

The appeal is from an order of the trial judge overruling Barringer's motion for judgments non obstante veredicto in his favor. Appellant's single exception is based on the contention that the court should have granted his motion for directed verdicts, on the ground that the only reasonable inference to be drawn from the evidence was that both Sarvis and Beverly were barred from recovery by contributory negligence and recklessness on the part of Sarvis. For the purpose of this appeal it is conceded that any negligence or recklessness on the part of Sarvis is imputable to Beverly. In oral argument, counsel for appellant conceded that the evidence was quite sufficient to take to the jury the issue of willfulness on the part of appellant and, hence, the only issue for decision is whether Sarvis was guilty of contributory recklessness or willfulness as a matter of law.

This question has to be decided in the light of well established principles of law. It is elementary, and requires no citation of authority, that the evidence, and all inferences reasonably deducible therefrom, must be considered in the light most favorable to the respondents, and if more than one reasonable inference can be drawn from the evidence, or if the inferences to be drawn therefrom are in conflict or doubt, the issue of contributory willfulness was an issue of fact for the jury, rather than an issue of law for the court.

We, accordingly, proceed to review the evidence in the light of the foregoing principles. The collision occurred on the night of January 28, 1962, at a point on Highway No. 378, approximately twenty miles west of Conway, South Carolina. Barringer, a young man, was driving a Buick automobile in a westerly direction and was accompanied by four other young people. His party had spent the weekend at the beach and were on a return trip to Columbia. A deer ran across the highway from Barringer's left and was struck by the left front portion of the Buick. The force of the impact hurled the deer back in the direction from whence it came, to the shoulder area on the south side of the highway. Barringer stopped, backed up, and then drove to his left of the highway and stopped near where the deer had fallen. Although the evidence is conflicting thereabout, there is evidence to the effect that a substantial portion of the Buick automobile, if not all thereof, was parked on the paved portion of the highway.

It was decided by one of Barringer's party that they should load the deer into the trunk of the car and take it with them, and arrangements to that end were being made when the Ford car driven by Sarvis and occupied by Beverly approached from a westerly direction. Sarvis and Beverly both apparently lived in the vicinity of Conway and were returning from a trip to Sumter. There is nothing in the record to show that either of them was familiar with the highway at that location. At the scene of the collision the paved portion of the highway was approximately twenty-two feet wide, and straight in that immediate locality, but at a point approximately one-half mile to the west thereof it curves. Sarvis testified that as he came around the curve and approached the scene of the collision he was driving 'between 55 and 60'; '55 or 60', and '55 to 60'. There is no evidence of any greater speed on his part. His narrative description of the collision was as follows:

'Well, I was coming down 378 toward Conway and I seen these lights on the highway and they were so bright I couldn't watch the light and I was watching the right-hand side of the highway and staying on my side of the road and when I looked back up, I was right on top of the car and I slammed on my brakes and that's the last I remember until they were taking me out of the car.'

While the lights on the Barringer automobile were visible to Sarvis for approximately one-half mile, he testified that he was 'not too awfully far' therefrom when said lights first blined him or interfered with his vision, and at that time, he could not tell that the Barringer car was on its left-hand side of the road. Just how far Sarvis traveled, after being at least partially blinded by these lights, with his vision centered on his side of the road in an effort to make sure that he stayed in his lane, does not appear in the record, but he estimated that he was about fifty feet from the...