Caughman v. State Highway Department
Decision Date | 02 January 1930 |
Docket Number | 12798. |
Parties | CAUGHMAN v. STATE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT. |
Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Lee County; C.J. Ramage Judge.
Action by V. C. Caughman, 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.
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 Carolina 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:
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, term of 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 S.C. 489, 143 S.E. 273 276, this court said: "In passing upon a motion for a directed verdict for a defendant, the trial judge is bound by the well-established rule of law that the evidence, together with...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Morrison v. South Carolina State Highway Dept.
...187 S.E. 344 181 S.C. 258 MORRISON v. SOUTH CAROLINA STATE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT. No. 14344.Supreme Court of South CarolinaAugust 1, 1936 ... Appeal ... from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Chester County; M. M ... say as a matter of law that recovery was barred ... Counsel ... cite Caughman v. State Highway Dept., 154 S.C. 43, ... 151 S.E. 107, and Bouknight v. State Highway ... Department, 157 S.C. 154, 154 S.E. 95 ... ...
-
De Shields v. Waters
... ... the State Board of Education, consolidating Trinity School ... District No. 85 and ... ...