Duke v. Westvaco Development Corp., 0005
| Court | Court of Appeals of South Carolina |
| Writing for the Court | SANDERS |
| Citation | 279 S.C. 464,309 S.E.2d 293 |
| Parties | Robert M. DUKE, Appellant, v. WESTVACO DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Respondent. |
| Docket Number | No. 0005,0005 |
| Decision Date | 14 November 1983 |
Page 293
v.
WESTVACO DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Respondent.
Page 294
[279 S.C. 465] Arthur G. Howe and Carl H. Jacobson, Uricchio, Howe & Krell, Charleston, for appellant.
G. Dana Sinkler, Sinkler, Gibbs & Simons, Charleston, for respondent.
SANDERS, Chief Judge:
Appellant Duke was injured when he drove his truck into a ditch which stretched across a road owned by respondent Westvaco. The trial judge granted a nonsuit in favor of Westvaco on the grounds Duke was a trespasser and was guilty of contributory negligence. Duke also appeals from the order of the trial judge excluding testimony of two witnesses and refusing to continue the case for trial. We reverse.
The road in question was, at one time, a public highway known as Trolly Road. This road was conveyed to Westvaco by quit claim deed dated March 14, 1978. However, people not connected with Westvaco continued to use the road after this date. Duke testified that he had used it "lots of times" in previous years, but not since about 1974 or 1975.
On the night of November 12, 1978, Duke turned onto Trolly Road at its intersection with Ladson Road, a public highway near Charleston, intending to drive to Summerville. At the point Duke entered, there were two posts on either side of Trolly Road and a section of pavement covered over with dirt. However, there was nothing blocking entrance or otherwise indicating the road was closed. To the contrary, Duke testified [279 S.C. 466] that he saw another car coming out of the road as he turned onto it.
Duke testified further that he drove along Trolly Road, reaching a speed of "about fifty" for a distance of approximately two and one-half miles. He was blinded by the headlights of another car which appeared to be coming toward him and ran into a ditch "right in the road." Photographs in the record show this ditch as blocking Trolly Road. 1
According to Duke, the ditch was about four feet deep and nine feet wide. His testimony is consistent with the photographs which also show Trolly Road to be paved and painted with a center line, as are the public highways of this state.
The engineering manager for Westvaco conceded in his testimony that there were no signs posted saying the road was not in use or available to the public. He further conceded that he knew other people used the road after Westvaco acquired it. Finally, this witness admitted he was aware of the ditch and the fact that there were no warnings of its presence.
Duke first contends that under these facts, the questions of whether he was a trespasser and whether Westvaco wilfully inflicted his injury should have been submitted to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McGaha v. Mosley, 0289
...who violate the rules, including exclusion of witnesses whose identities have been withheld. E.g., Duke v. Westvaco Development Corp., 279 S.C. 464, 309 S.E.2d 293 (S.C.App.1983). Imposition of sanctions is a matter committed to the discretion of the trial court. Moran v. Jones, S.C., 315 S......
-
Willis v. Floyd Brace Co., Inc., 0004
...the professional. This testimony, coupled with the other evidence that Willis repeatedly took the brace back asking it to be repaired and [279 S.C. 464] was always told there was nothing wrong with it, is adequate in our view to support the verdict for punitive Finding no error, the judgmen......
-
Ludwick v. This Minute of Carolina, Inc., 0236
...Associate Management, Inc. v. E.D. Sauls Construction Company, 279 S.C. 219, 305 S.E.2d 236 (1983); Duke v. Westvaco Development, 279 S.C. 464, 309 S.E.2d 293 (S.C.App.1983). Viewed in the light most favorable to Mrs. Ludwick, the facts here may be summarized as [283 S.C. 152] Mrs. Ludwick ......
-
Champion v. Whaley, 0038
...to the jury. Associate Management v. E.D. Sauls Construction Co., S.C., 305 S.E.2d 236 (S.C.1983); Duke v. Westvaco Development Corp., 309 S.E.2d 293 Viewed in the light most favorable to Champion, the evidence disclosed the following material facts. Whaley and Edwards (the Sellers) own a h......
-
McGaha v. Mosley, 0289
...who violate the rules, including exclusion of witnesses whose identities have been withheld. E.g., Duke v. Westvaco Development Corp., 279 S.C. 464, 309 S.E.2d 293 (S.C.App.1983). Imposition of sanctions is a matter committed to the discretion of the trial court. Moran v. Jones, S.C., 315 S......
-
Willis v. Floyd Brace Co., Inc., 0004
...the professional. This testimony, coupled with the other evidence that Willis repeatedly took the brace back asking it to be repaired and [279 S.C. 464] was always told there was nothing wrong with it, is adequate in our view to support the verdict for punitive Finding no error, the judgmen......
-
Ludwick v. This Minute of Carolina, Inc., 0236
...Associate Management, Inc. v. E.D. Sauls Construction Company, 279 S.C. 219, 305 S.E.2d 236 (1983); Duke v. Westvaco Development, 279 S.C. 464, 309 S.E.2d 293 (S.C.App.1983). Viewed in the light most favorable to Mrs. Ludwick, the facts here may be summarized as [283 S.C. 152] Mrs. Ludwick ......
-
Champion v. Whaley, 0038
...to the jury. Associate Management v. E.D. Sauls Construction Co., S.C., 305 S.E.2d 236 (S.C.1983); Duke v. Westvaco Development Corp., 309 S.E.2d 293 Viewed in the light most favorable to Champion, the evidence disclosed the following material facts. Whaley and Edwards (the Sellers) own a h......