Cox v. McGraham
| Decision Date | 06 December 1947 |
| Docket Number | 16018. |
| Parties | COX v. McGRAHAM et al. |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
George W. Keels, of Florence, for appellant.
Epps & Epps, of Conway, for respondents.
This action was instituted in the Court of Common Pleas for Horry County, South Carolina, November 26, 1945, by the plaintiff for the purpose of recovering damages he is alleged to have sustained by reason of a collision between a car owned by him and one Dodge automobile, License No. C-49-503, owned and driven by Luther McGraham. At the conclusion of all the testimony, counsel for defendants made a motion for a directed verdict on the ground that no actionable negligence was shown. This motion was granted by the trial judge upon the grounds 'that the only reasonable inference to be drawn from the entire record is that there has been no negligence shown on the part of the defendant in the operation of his automobile'; and the plaintiff now comes to this Court upon an appeal which presents only one question: Whether or not there was sufficient testimony to submit to the jury the question of negligence, recklessness and willfulness of the respondents; and whether or not there was such contributory negligence, recklessness and willfulness on the part of appellant or his agent in the operation of appellant's automobile as to warrant the direction of a verdict in favor of the defendant.
The plaintiff and his driver testified that on or about the 25th day of November, 1945, while traveling at 45 or 50 miles per hour along South Carolina Highway No. 701, in the direction of Conway, South Carolina, with Mr. Gene Richardson driving they approached a filling station on their left side of the road with a truck parked at the outside tank. When they were approximately 30 feet from the truck, the defendant McGraham drove his car from in back of the truck across to the right side of the highway and headed in the same direction plaintiff was traveling. The driver Richardson immediately applied brakes and cut the wheels in order to avoid a collision; that upon doing so, his car turned over, and as it did, struck the right rear of the McGraham car.
The testimony of the defendants is contradictory in almost every respect except that there was a collision. However, when a motion is made by the defendant for a directed verdict in his favor, the evidence in the cause must be considered most favorable to the plaintiff in determining whether or not the motion should be granted; and if more than one inference can reasonably be drawn therefrom, it is the duty of the trial judge to submit the case to the jury. Crews v Sweet, 125 S.C. 303, 118 S.E. 613, 29 A.L.R. 43; Ford v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 169 S.C. 41, 168 S.E. 143; Lower Main Street Bank v. Caledonian Insurance Co., 135 S.C. 155, 133 S.E. 553; Lynch v. Pee Dee Express, 204 S.C. 537, 30 S.E.2d 449.
Not only should questions of fact be submitted to the jury when they are in dispute, but the jury must also pass upon...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Moorer v. Dowling
...than one inference can reasonably be drawn therefrom, it is the duty of the Trial Judge to submit the case to the jury. Cox v. McGraham, 211 S.C. 378, 45 S.E.2d 595; Crews v. Sweet, 125 S.C. 303, 118 S.E. 613, A.L.R. 43; Ford v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 169 S.C. 41, 168 S.E. 143; Lower M......
-
Arkwright Mills v. Clearwater Mfg. Co.
... ... plaintiff, and that if more than one reasonable inference can ... be drawn therefrom, or if the inferences to be deduced from ... the testimony are in doubt, the case should be submitted to ... the jury. Lynch. v. Pee Dee Express, 204 S.C. 537, ... 30 S.E.2d 449; Cox v. McGraham, 211 S.C. 378, 45 ... S.E.2d 595 ... The warehouse in ... which the respondent's grey cloth was destroyed by fire ... was formerly operated as a cotton mill, but some years ago it ... was converted into a warehouse, and is owned by Langley ... Mills. There were three floors in ... ...
-
Cook v. Norwood
...than one inference can reasonably be drawn therefrom, it is the duty of the Trial Judge to submit the case to the jury. Cox v. McGraham, 211 S.C. 378, 45 S.E.2d 595; Crews v. Sweet, 125 S.C. 303, 118 S.E. 613, A.L.R. 43; Ford v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 169 S.C. 41, 168 S.E. 143; Lower M......
-
Marks v. Industrial Life & Health Ins. Co.
... ... 113 S.E. 637, 639, 35 A.L.R. 637; Turner v. American ... Motorist Insurance Company, 176 S.C. 260, 180 S.E. 55; ... Crawford v. Town of Winnsboro et al., 205 S.C. 72, ... 30 S.E.2d 841; Ratcliff v. Southern Aviation School et ... al., 209 S.C. 411, 412, 40 S.E.2d 626; Cox v ... McGraham, 211 S.C. 378, 45 S.E.2d 595 ... The ... attending circumstances along with the direct testimony may ... be taken into account by the jury in arriving at its decision ... as any fact in issue may be established by circumstantial ... evidence, if the circumstances, [212 S.C ... ...