Camp v. Petroleum Carrier Corp.

• Decision Date: 11 January 1944
• Docket Number: 15609.
• Citation: 28 S.E.2d 683,204 S.C. 133
• Parties: CAMP v. PETROLEUM CARRIER CORPORATION et al. (three cases). WRIGHT v. SAME.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

28 S.E.2d 683

204 S.C. 133

CAMP v. PETROLEUM CARRIER CORPORATION et al. (three cases).

WRIGHT v. SAME.

No. 15609.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

January 11, 1944

Waring & Brockinton, of Charleston, for appellants.

J D. Parler, of St. George, for respondent.

BAKER Associate Justice.

The above captioned actions having as their foundation a collision between an automobile, the property of W. B. Camp and occupied by Clyde M. Camp, Mrs. Margaret E. Wright and Mrs. Clyde M. Camp (the last named has not brought an action for the personal injuries which she sustained) and a truck owned by Petroleum Carrier Corporation, and driven by George Aiken, Jr., were tried together in the Circuit Court and the respective appeals to this court are being likewise handled.

As a result of the collision, Clyde M. Camp was killed, Mrs Margaret E. Wright was seriously injured, and the automobile of W. B. Camp was practically demolished.

W. B. Camp, as administrator of the Estate of Clyde M. Camp, brought an action against Petroleum Carrier Corporation (also named in the summons as defendants were George Aiken, Jr., and the truck and trailer shown in the caption) for the wrongful death of Clyde M. Camp; and a second action for the conscious pain and suffering of Clyde M. Camp. In the first mentioned action (the wrongful death case) the only named defendant served with the summons and complaint was Petroleum Carrier Corporation. In the pain and suffering action all named defendants were served with the process. In the action by Mrs. Margaret E. Wright, through her guardian ad litem, only the defendant, Petroleum Carrier Corporation, was served with the summons and complaint. In the property damage case of W. B. Camp, individually, all of the defendants named in the caption were served.

Quoting from the record:

"The defendant moved for a directed verdict in the pain and suffering case and, after argument, the motion was overruled.

The defendant moved for a directed verdict in the wrongful death case and in the personal injury case. After hearing arguments of counsel, the Court denied the motions."

The jury returned verdicts in favor of the plaintiffs (respondents) in all four cases, as follows: For the plaintiff in the wrongful death action, $3,000; for the plaintiff in the personal injury action, $3,000; for the plaintiff in the pain and suffering action, $2,000; and for the plaintiff in the property damage action, $2,000.

In the property damage action the Presiding Judge on motion of the defendants for a new trial, granted a new trial nisi, that is, unless the plaintiff remitted on the record so much of the verdict as exceeded $1,000, which the plaintiff did.

At the time of the collision, which gave rise to these actions, both the automobile and the truck were traveling on State Highway No. 2, the automobile proceeding southwardly on said highway and the truck proceeding northwardly. The automobile was being driven by Mrs. Margaret E. Wright.

The respondents claim that the truck of Petroleum Carrier Corporation came over on the wrong side of the road, at an excessive rate of speed, and that the collision and the death and injuries hereinabove referred to were the direct result of the negligent and wanton operation of the truck. The appellants claim that on the contrary the automobile came over on the truck's side of the road at a high rate of speed, and that whatever injuries and damages were suffered were due to and caused by negligence and wantonness in the operation of the automobile.

The "Questions Involved" in this appeal are more accurately stated in respondent's brief, and are as follows:

"1. Did the Trial Judge err in permitting the introduction in evidence of the plat made by Felix A. Moorer?

2. Did the Trial Judge err in refusing to direct a verdict for appellant in the pain and suffering action made upon the ground that there was no evidence that the deceased suffered any conscious pain?

3. Did the Trial Judge err in refusing to grant appellant's motions for a directed verdict in the wrongful death action and in the personal injury action made upon the ground that the actions were brought against all of the defendants named therein as joint tort-feasors and, since any imputation of negligence and wantonness on the part of appellant, would necessarily be by reason of the wrongful act of the defendant, George Aiken, Jr., who was not served, a verdict against appellant alone would be illegal and could not stand?"

We think the following brief excerpt from the record will suffice to show that appellants' exception to the admission in evidence of the plat made by Mr. Moorer is not well taken.

"Felix A. Moorer was called as the next witness for plaintiff and was duly sworn, Mr. Moorer testified that he is a civil engineer and surveyor, living and practicing his

...