Bouknight v. State Highway Department

• Decision Date: 07 July 1930
• Docket Number: 12943.
• Citation: 154 S.E. 95,157 S.C. 154
• Parties: BOUKNIGHT v. STATE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

154 S.E. 95

157 S.C. 154

BOUKNIGHT v. STATE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT.

No. 12943.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

July 7, 1930

Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Edgefield County; John S Wilson, Judge.

Action by B. B. Bouknight against the State Highway Department of South Carolina. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals and brings error.

Affirmed.

John M Daniel, Atty. Gen., of Columbia, and James O. Sheppard, of Edgefield, for appellant.

J. Wm Thurmond and T. B. Greneker, both of Edgefield, for respondent.

STABLER J.

This is a suit for damages for injuries to person and property. The complaint contains two causes of action. For a first cause the plaintiff alleged that, on December 9, 1929, while he was driving his Ford sedan along the Dixie highway, between Trenton and Edgefield, on his right-hand side of the road at about twenty miles per hour, he met and collided with a tractor of the defendant; that as a result of the collision he received severe and painful bodily injuries, which were due to and caused by the negligent acts of the defendant, its agents and servants, in operating the tractor at that time and place in a heavy fog on its left-hand side of the road without lights, in the mismanagement of the tractor and in failing to keep a proper lookout, etc. The second cause of action was for damages on account of injury to the automobile in which plaintiff was riding at the time of the collision.

The defendant, answering, admitted that it was operating its tractor, at the time and place of the accident, on its left-hand side of the road, but alleged that this was often done and was the most practical manner for repairing and dragging the road at this particular place on this occasion, and that the tractor and drags were equipped with red flags and other signs to warn travelers of their proximity. It denied that it was negligent in any of the particulars alleged in the complaint, and for a further defense pleaded that plaintiff's injuries were due to his own acts of negligence in failing to heed the warning and signals given by the defendant's agents and servants to stop his car, and in driving forward at a high and dangerous rate of speed.

The case was tried at the March, 1930, term of the court of common pleas for Edgefield county before Judge John S. Wilson and a jury. At the close of all the testimony the defendant made a motion for a directed verdict, on the ground that there was no evidence of...