Doe v. Asbury, No. 0139

CourtCourt of Appeals of South Carolina
Writing for the CourtSANDERS
Citation314 S.E.2d 849,281 S.C. 191
PartiesJoe Ann DOE, Respondent, v. Albert E. ASBURY and Ryder Truck Lines, Inc., Appellants. . Heard
Decision Date23 February 1984
Docket NumberNo. 0139

Page 849

314 S.E.2d 849
281 S.C. 191
Joe Ann DOE, Respondent,
v.
Albert E. ASBURY and Ryder Truck Lines, Inc., Appellants.
No. 0139.
Court of Appeals of South Carolina.
Heard Feb. 23, 1984.
Decided April 2, 1984.

Page 850

[281 S.C. 193] W. Ray Berry, Columbia, for appellants.

Gary D. Brown, Ridgeland, for respondent.

SANDERS, Chief Judge:

This is a suit arising out of a collision between an automobile driven by respondent Joe Ann Doe and a tractor trailer truck driven by appellant Asbury as the employee of appellant Ryder. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Doe. We affirm.

I

Asbury and Ryder first argue there was insufficient "creditable testimony as to the negligence and/or recklessness of appellant driver to warrant submitting the case to the jury."

In an action at law, the jurisdiction of this Court extends only to the correction of errors of law. A factual finding of the jury will not be disturbed unless a review of the record discloses there is no evidence which reasonably supports the jury's findings. Townes Associates, Ltd. v. City of Greenville, 266 S.C. 81, 221 S.E.2d 773 (1976); Stevens v. Sun Publishing Company, 270 S.C. 65, 240 S.E.2d 812, cert. denied 436 U.S. 945, 98 S.Ct. 2847, 56 L.Ed.2d 786 (1978). In an appeal of this nature, the weight of the evidence presented at trial is not at issue. Instead, the question is simply whether there is any evidence in the record which [281 S.C. 194] would reasonably support the contentions of the party prevailing at trial. Tisdale v. Kerr McGee Chemical Corporation, 266 S.C. 64, 221 S.E.2d 531 (1976); Willis v. Floyd Brace Co., Inc., 309 S.E.2d 295 (S.C.App.1983). Judging the credibility of the testimony of witnesses is a function of the jury, not the court, as is the weight to be given to such testimony. Tisdale; Davenport, by his G/A/L, et al. v. Walker, S.C.App. 313 S.E.2d 354 (1984).

Page 851

It is therefore our task simply to review the record of the trial court and determine whether there was any evidence supporting the jury verdict. Willis. We find the evidence as follows:

This accident occurred on U.S. Highway 17 near Hardeeville, South Carolina. Highway 17 is a four lane highway, running generally north and south, and divided by a median provided for making left turns. Doe testified she was stopped in the median, headed South and preparing to make a left turn, when she saw the Ryder truck coming toward her. She described the truck as "wobbling" and "going in and out one lane and coming on the median." She said the truck then collided with the front left of her car, pushing it straight back on the median.

Asbury testified he was proceeding north on Highway 17 in the lane closest to the median when Doe suddenly turned left in front of him causing his truck to collide with the front left of her car. He denied driving into the median. Asbury further testified there were skid marks from his truck and "gouges" in the north bound lane of the highway in which he was traveling but no skid marks from his truck going into the median. He also said there was debris in the highway about three feet from the median. According to Asbury, his truck traveled about ten feet after the impact and came to rest on top of the Doe car and had "it mashed down to the pavement," with the front of the car in his lane of travel.

The investigating Hardeeville policeman testified he received a call about the accident when he was two to three blocks away and arrived on the scene within "no more than five seconds." His testimony tended to contradict, in part, the previous testimony of both Doe and Asbury. He said he found the Doe car headed south at an angle, pushed back 19 feet in the median, with damage to its left front and side. He described the Ryder truck as stopped in the northbound outer lane of the [281 S.C. 195] highway away from the median. He further testified there was debris in the inner northbound lane "85 feet 5 inches" from where the truck was stopped and tire tracks on the wet pavement from the trailer of the truck back to and before the debris, but no tracks from the truck into the median.

In our opinion, the testimony of Doe was sufficient to warrant submitting this case to the jury. The jury chose to accept her testimony over that of Asbury. The jury also chose to disregard the testimony of the policeman as to debris and tire marks which tended to support Asbury's version of how the accident occurred. We are not at liberty to substitute our view of the evidence for the verdict of the jury. Gurley, et al. v. United Services Automobile Association, 309 S.E.2d 11 (S.C.App.1983).

Asbury and Ryder argue the location of the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 practice notes
  • Brown v. Stewart, No. 3408.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • 19 November 2001
    ...Further, the evaluation of the testimony and the credibility of the witnesses were matters for the jury to determine. See Doe v. Asbury, 281 S.C. 191, 194, 314 S.E.2d 849, 850 (Ct.App.1984) ("Judging the credibility of the testimony of witnesses is a function of the jury, not the court, as ......
  • Southern Realty and Const. Co., Inc. v. Bryan, No. 0802
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • 24 June 1986
    ...ordinarily become involved in judging the credibility of witnesses. Such is a function of the [290 S.C. 314] trier of fact. Doe v. Asbury, 281 S.C. 191, 314 S.E.2d 849 (Ct.App.1984); Melton v. Williams, 281 S.C. 182, 314 S.E.2d 612 (Ct.App.1984). Giving due deference to the consideration of......
  • Stallings v. Ratliff, No. 0950
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • 19 February 1987
    ...risk. In other words, a classic jury issue was presented. Melton v. Williams, 281 S.C. 182, 314 S.E.2d 612 (Ct.App.1984); Doe v. Asbury, 281 S.C. 191, 314 S.E.2d 849 (Ct.App.1984) (credibility of witnesses is a question for the jury). For this reason, a directed verdict was For the reasons ......
  • Samuel v. Mouzon, No. 0255
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • 27 June 1984
    ...of debris at the scene of the accident which tended to support Mouzon's version of how the collision occurred. See Doe v. Asbury, 314 S.E.2d 849 (S.C.App.1984) (sustained jury verdict which implicitly disregarded testimony of a policeman as to debris and tire [282 S.C. 623] Accordingly, the......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
6 cases
  • Brown v. Stewart, No. 3408.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • 19 November 2001
    ...Further, the evaluation of the testimony and the credibility of the witnesses were matters for the jury to determine. See Doe v. Asbury, 281 S.C. 191, 194, 314 S.E.2d 849, 850 (Ct.App.1984) ("Judging the credibility of the testimony of witnesses is a function of the jury, not the court, as ......
  • Southern Realty and Const. Co., Inc. v. Bryan, No. 0802
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • 24 June 1986
    ...ordinarily become involved in judging the credibility of witnesses. Such is a function of the [290 S.C. 314] trier of fact. Doe v. Asbury, 281 S.C. 191, 314 S.E.2d 849 (Ct.App.1984); Melton v. Williams, 281 S.C. 182, 314 S.E.2d 612 (Ct.App.1984). Giving due deference to the consideration of......
  • Stallings v. Ratliff, No. 0950
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • 19 February 1987
    ...risk. In other words, a classic jury issue was presented. Melton v. Williams, 281 S.C. 182, 314 S.E.2d 612 (Ct.App.1984); Doe v. Asbury, 281 S.C. 191, 314 S.E.2d 849 (Ct.App.1984) (credibility of witnesses is a question for the jury). For this reason, a directed verdict was For the reasons ......
  • Samuel v. Mouzon, No. 0255
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • 27 June 1984
    ...of debris at the scene of the accident which tended to support Mouzon's version of how the collision occurred. See Doe v. Asbury, 314 S.E.2d 849 (S.C.App.1984) (sustained jury verdict which implicitly disregarded testimony of a policeman as to debris and tire [282 S.C. 623] Accordingly, the......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT