Clawson v. City of Sumter

• Decision Date: 05 May 1966
• Docket Number: No. 18499,18499
• Citation: 247 S.C. 499,148 S.E.2d 350
• Parties: Mrs. Margaret P. CLAWSON, Respondent, v. The CITY OF SUMTER and James Blanding Richburg, of which the City of Sumteris, Appellant.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

Page 350

148 S.E.2d 350

247 S.C. 499

Mrs. Margaret P. CLAWSON, Respondent, v. The CITY OF SUMTER and James Blanding Richburg, of which the City of Sumteris, Appellant.

No. 18499.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

May 5, 1966.

C. M. Edmunds, Sumter, for appellant.

Richardson & James, Sumter, for respondent.

LEWIS, Justice.

The plaintiff sustained injuries in a collision between the automobile, driven by her, and a truck of the defendant City of Sumter, driven by its agent, the defendant Richburg. This action, brought against the City and the driver of its truck to recover the damages sustained by plaintiff, resulted in a judgment in her favor against both, from which only the City has appealed.

The sole question presented by the exceptions is whether the trial judge erred in refusing to direct a verdict for the defendant upon the ground that the evidence conclusively showed contributory negligence on the part of plaintiff so as to bar her of recovery.

This action was brought against the defendant City under Section 47--71 of the 1962 Code of Laws. The plaintiff was required under this statute to allege and prove that her injury was not brought about by her own negligence and that she did not negligently contribute thereto. The determination of such issue is governed by the established principle that, if more than one reasonable inference can be drawn thereabout from the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, the question of contributory negligence is one of fact for the jury to determine. Rowland v. Town of Dillon, 188 S.C. 408, 199 S.E. 525.

The collision occurred about 11 A.M., on June 21, 1964, near the City of Sumter, at the intersection of Highways 120 and 763. Highway 120 is a through highway and traffic entering it from Highway 763 is required to stop in obedience to a posted stop sign. The intersection is located on a curve in Highway 120 and is described as 'confusing' to a motorist. However, we are unable to determine from the record the exact physical layout of the area.

On the occasion in question, as plaintiff was proceeding south on the through highway at a reasonable speed, the defendant's truck was driven from a nearby parking lot into Highway 763 and travelled thereon, in an easterly direction, a distance of approximately 75 feet before entering the intersection directly into the path of plaintiff's automobile. The brakes of neither vehicle were applied. Both drivers testified that they were looking ahead but did not see the other. However, there were swerve marks on the pavement for an undetermined distance, made by the tires of plaintiff's automobile immediately before the collision. There was nothing in the area adjacent to the intersection to obstruct the view of either driver. The defendant's driver said that he failed to see plaintiff's car before he entered the intersection because of the...