Cantrell v. Carruth

• Citation: 158 S.E.2d 208,250 S.C. 415
• Decision Date: 08 December 1967
• Docket Number: No. 18736,18736
• Parties: Emma CANTRELL, Appellant, v. B. Frank CARRUTH, d/b/a Carruth Furniture Company, and Jack Carruth, Respondents.
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina

Page 208

158 S.E.2d 208

250 S.C. 415

Emma CANTRELL, Appellant, v. B. Frank CARRUTH, d/b/a Carruth Furniture Company, and Jack

Carruth, Respondents.

No. 18736.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

Dec. 8, 1967.

Christ Christ, Spartanburg, for appellant.

Louis P. Howell, of Ward, Howell & Barnes, Spartanburg, for respondent.

MOSS, Chief Justice.

This is an action brought by Emma Cantrell, the appellant herein, against B. Frank Carruth, doing business as Carruth Furniture Compnay, and Jack Carruth, the respondents herein, to recover damages for personal injuries sustained on March 17, 1966. The appellant alleged that she received personal injuries when she fell in an attempt to avoid being struck by a truck being backed in a negligent and reckless manner towards her by Jack Carruth, an employee of Carruth Furniture Company. At the conclusion of all the testimony the trial judge directed a verdict in favor of the respondents. This is an appeal from such order.

The exceptions of the appellant charge error on the part of the trial judge in directing a verdict in favor of the respondents. The respondents take the position that the appellant's exceptions are too general and that under Rule 4, Section 6 of this Court the exceptions should not be considered. While the exceptions are general, our examination of them discloses that they contain what we consider meritorious assignments of error. We, therefore, overrule the respondents' objections thereto. Brady v. Brady, 222 S.C. 242, 72 S.E.2d 193.

It is a well settled rule of law in passing upon exceptions challenging the ruling of a trial judge upon a motion for a directed verdict the evidence and all inferences reasonably deducible therefrom must be taken most strongly against the moving party and considered in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. If more than one reasonable inference can be drawn from the evidence the case must be submitted to the jury. Carter v. Beals, 248 S.C. 526, 151 S.E.2d 671; Grier v. Cornelius, 247 S.C. 521, 148 S.E.2d 338. We have held that if the inferences properly deducible from the evidence are doubtful, or if they tend to show both parties guilty of negligence or recklessness, and there may be a fair difference of opinion as to whose act produced the injury complained of as a direct and proximate cause, then the question must be submitted to the jury. Green v. Bolen, 237 S.C. 1, 115 S.E.2d 667.

The respondent, B. Frank Carruth, is the owner and operator of Carruth Furniture Company in the town of Landum, South Carolina. Jack Carruth is his employee. The furniture store is situated on the west side of U.S. Highway 176. The front of the store building is parallel to said highway. A paved sidewalk parallel to the said highway approaches the store from the south and ends a short distance from the southern end of the building. At the point where the sidewalk ends there begins a paved asphalt parking area extending beyond the northern end of the store. The parking area also extends around the southern end of the building and covers the entire area in front of the building to the highway where traffic may enter and leave at any point along the front of the parking area. The area at the southern end of the building is used for the storage of large household appliances and for the parking of a pickup truck owned by and used in the business of Frank Carruth. The front of the furniture store is approximately 35 feet from the line of the sidewalk if such had been extended across the parking area.

The appellant testified that prior to her fall she was approaching the furniture store from the south. When she reached the end of the sidewalk she began to cross the asphalt parking area in order to enter the store for the purpose of purchasing a stove. She testified that she proceeded from the sidewalk in a direction toward the southern corner of the store, it being her intention to walk alongside the front of the building to the entrance thereto. She testified that as she proceeded from the sidewalk to the southern end of the store some girls in front of her 'screamed' that a truck was coming in her direction. She turned and saw the truck coming and ran to get out of its way. While attempting to get out of the way she fell, fracturing her hip.

The pickup truck had been parked at the southern side of the building with the rear thereof pointing toward the highway and even with the front of the building. Jack Carruth testified that he intended to back the truck toward the south in the direction of the sidewalk so that he could drive out of the parking area toward the north. When he entered the truck he saw two girls approximately at the end of the sidewalk approaching the parking area. He allowed the truck to roll back approximately its length and then paused, waiting for the two girls to pass. When the two girls came into his view on the other side of the truck he looked into his mirrors and to the left, saw no one, and proceeded to back, turning the rear of the truck in the direction of the sidewalk. One of the girls then pointed to the back of the truck and he immediately stopped, got out of the truck, and saw the appellant lying on the pavement. He admitted that he did not see the appellant prior to her fall.

There were no obstructions on the paved parking area which would block the view of the driver of the pickup truck. However, an automobile was parked at the end of the sidewalk covering a portion of the western edge of the sidewalk. Jack Carruth testified that he was unable to observe whether pedestrians were on that portion of the sidewalk where the automobile was parked. He testified that if the appellant had been beside the automobile at the time he looked in that direction when backing the truck in the direction of the sidewalk he could not have seen her....