Caughman v. State Highway Dep't

• Citation: 151 S.E. 107
• Decision Date: 02 January 1930
• Docket Number: (No. 12798.)
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
• Parties: CAUGHMAN. v. STATE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT.

151 S.E. 107

CAUGHMAN.

v.STATE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT.

(No. 12798.)

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

Jan. 2, 1930.

Cothran, J., dissenting.

Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Lee County; C. J. Ramage, Judge.

Action by V. C. Caugbman, administrator, against the State Highway Department of South Carolina. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

John M. Daniel, Atty. Gen., and Cordie Page and J. Ivey Humphrey, Asst. Attys. Gen., for appellant.

Henry C. Jennings and Thomas H. Tatum, both of Bishopville, for respondent.

STABLER, J. This is an action for damages for pain and suffering of plaintiff's intestate, alleged to have resulted from defendant's negligence in the construction and maintenance of a certain state highway at a point near the town of Bishopville.

The complaint alleges that "highway No. 30" extends across the state of South Caro lina by way of Bishopville, Sumter, and other towns, and is under the control and supervision of the defendant, the state highway department; that this highway, about one mile south of Bishopville, crosses a stream upon a culvert, also constructed and maintained by the defendant, the stream approaching and leaving the culvert in an open canal about 12 feet wide and 8 feet deep; that on November 15, 1927, the plaintiff's intestate, Thaunon Caughman, was driving at night along this road in a Ford car, going in the direction of Sumter from Bishopville; that, on approaching the culvert, he turned out on the extra width of the roadbed, struck the concrete head wall, turned over his car, and received injuries from which he afterwards died; and that his wounds, suffering, and pain were brought about, proximately and directly, by the negligent acts of the defendant, in the following particulars:

"(a) In negligently failing to erect some suitable sign or structure to warn the traveling public that said highway crossed a culvert at that point with dangerous excavations on each side up to the 30-foot width of said road.

"(b) In negligently failing to erect balustrades, guard rails, or some other suitable structures at the ends of said culvert to warn the traveling public of the location of the termini thereof and the points where the canal was open.

"(c) In negligently failing to erect guard rails or some other suitable structures along, the sides of said highway approaching said culvert to direct the driving of the traveling public across said culvert and to give warning of the peril of driving out of the road at that point.

"(d) In negligently constructing and providing a filled-in roadbed on each side of said culvert, with a top surface of greater width than 30 feet, of the same or substantially the same level as the roadbed provided for actual travel, and in negligently failing to extend the said culvert all the way across the entire roadbed.

"(e) In negligently failing to erect guard rails or some other suitable structure along the sides of said highway where it crossed said branch on a filled-in roadbed.

"(f) In negligently failing to properly construct said highway and culvert and the approaches thereto, and in negligently failing to properly protect the traveling public in crossing said culvert and the approaches thereto, by some warning of the danger at that point."

The answer set up contributory negligence on the part of plaintiff's intestate, and pleaded that the road in question was a federal aid project of standard construction and dimensions.

The case was tried before his honor, Judge Ramage, and a jury, at the April, 1929, termof the court of common pleas for Lee county. The jury found for the plaintiff in the sum of $500, and from the judgment entered upon the verdict the defendant appeals, imputing error to the trial court in refusing its motions for a nonsuit, for a directed verdict, and for a new trial.

The grounds of the motions were (1) that there was no evidence of negligence on the part of the defendant shown to be a proximate cause of the accident; and (2) that plaintiff's intestate was guilty, as a matter of law, of contributory negligence which contributed as a proximate cause to the injuries complained of.

In Leitner v. Railway Co., 145 8. C. 489, 143 S. E. 273, 276, this court said: "In...