Clyde v. Southern Public Utilities Co.

• Decision Date: 18 April 1918
• Docket Number: 9959.
• Citation: 96 S.E. 116,109 S.C. 290
• Parties: CLYDE v. SOUTHERN PUBLIC UTILITIES CO. POWELL v. SOUTHERN PUBLIC UTILITIES CO. ET AL.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

96 S.E. 116

109 S.C. 290

CLYDE v. SOUTHERN PUBLIC UTILITIES CO.

POWELL v. SOUTHERN PUBLIC UTILITIES CO. ET AL.

No. 9959.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

April 18, 1918

Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Greenville County; Mendel L. Smith, Judge.

Actions by C. H. Clyde against the Southern Public Utilities Company and by R. K. Powell against the Southern Public Utilities Company and C. M. Childress. From judgments for plaintiffs defendants appeal. Affirmed.

Haynsworth & Haynsworth, of Greenville, for appellants.

McCullough Martin & Blythe, of Greenville, for respondents.

HYDRICK J.

These actions were tried together, because they grew out of the same accident, the collision of a trolley car with a motor truck. Clyde was the owner and Powell the driver of the truck. The defendant corporation owned the street car which was operated by Childress, as motorman. The collision occurred at the intersection of Falls street with McBee avenue, in the city of Greenville. The street car was running along McBee avenue, and the truck entered the avenue from Falls street, and was proceeding across the car track when it was struck by the car. The plaintiffs alleged negligence and recklessness in the rate of speed, in the failure to give signals and keep a lookout, and in not stopping the car after it became apparent that the truck and its driver were in peril. The defendants entered a general denial, and pleaded contributory negligence. At the conclusion of all the evidence defendants asked for a directed verdict: (1) As to punitive damages, on the ground that there was no evidence of recklessness; and (2) as to actual damages, on the ground (a) that there was no evidence of negligence, and (b) because plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence. The motion was refused on all grounds. After very full and clear instructions upon every phase of the law involved, to which no exception has been taken, the jury found for plaintiffs only actual damages, $500 for Clyde, and $740 for Powell.

The first assignment of error is in the refusal of the motion for a directed verdict. We have carefully examined the evidence and find no error. There was evidence tending to prove each of the specifications of negligence and recklessness alleged. While the undisputed evidence does show that Powell was guilty of negligence, the evidence was conflicting as to whether his negligence contributed, as a proximate cause, to the collision. Therefore the issue of contributory negligence was properly submitted to the jury.

The next contention is that, as...