Evans v. Blue Ridge Ry. Co

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
Writing for the CourtGARY
Citation92 S.C. 77,75 S.E. 275
PartiesEVANS. v. BLUE RIDGE RY. CO. et al.
Decision Date18 July 1912

75 S.E. 275
(92 S.C. 77)

EVANS.
v.
BLUE RIDGE RY. CO. et al.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

July 18, 1912.


1. Appeal and Error (§ 241*)—Presentation Below—Sufficiency of Evidence.

Under circuit court rule 77 (73 S. E. vii), providing that the point that there is no evidence to support a cause of action shall be first made either by a motion for nonsuit or a motion to direct a verdict, exceptions relating to the sufficiency of the evidence cannot be reviewed where defendant's only objection was by motion for nonsuit on the ground of plaintiff's contributory negligence.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. §§ 1413-1416; Dec. Dig. § 241.*]

2. Street Railroads (§ 91*)—Negligence-Speed.

A failure to comply with the requirements of an ordinance that a train shall not exceed four miles an hour is negligence per se.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Street Railroads, Cent. Dig. §§ 190-192; Dec. Dig. § 91.*]

3. Street Railroads (§ 117*)—Collision-Negligence—Question for Jury.

Where, in an action for damages sustained from a motor car's colliding with plaintiff's automobile at a street crossing, there was evidence tending to show that both parties were negligent, the question of whose negligence was the proximate cause of the injury was for the jury.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Street Railroads, Cent. Dig. §§ 239-257; Dec. Dig. § 117.*]

Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Anderson County; Geo. E. Prince, Judge.

"To be officially reported."

Action by George W. Evans against the Blue Ridge Railway Company and another. From judgment for plaintiff, defendants appeal. Affirmed.

[75 S.E. 276]

Bonham, Watkins & Allen, of Anderson, for appellants.

Leon L. Rice, of Anderson, and Paget & Watkins, for respondent.

GARY, C. J. This is an action for damages alleged to have been sustained by the wrongful acts of the defendants in causing the motor car operated by them to collide with plaintiff's automobile at a street crossing in the city of Anderson, S. C.

The allegations of the complaint material to the questions involved are as follows: "That on the 14th day of May, 1911, the plaintiff was driving his automobile along Pant street, in the city of Anderson, at the point where defendant's line of railway intersects said street. As soon as plaintiff came into view of the track of defendant's line of railway, he was surprised by the approach of said motor car, running at a greater rate of speed than allowed by law. The sudden surprise and...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 practice notes
  • Hines v. Sweeney, 1007
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • October 3, 1921
    ...663, 157 S.W. 109; Texas Elec. Ry. v. Whitmore (Tex. Civ. App.) 222 S.W. 644; Traction Co. v. Apple, 34 App. D.C. 559; Evans v. Ry. Co., 92 S.C. 77, 75 S.E. 275; Butler v. Ry. Co., 90 S.C. 273, 73 S.E. 185.) 3. Counsel for defendant, however, contend that the accident to plaintiff in being ......
1 cases
  • Hines v. Sweeney, 1007
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • October 3, 1921
    ...663, 157 S.W. 109; Texas Elec. Ry. v. Whitmore (Tex. Civ. App.) 222 S.W. 644; Traction Co. v. Apple, 34 App. D.C. 559; Evans v. Ry. Co., 92 S.C. 77, 75 S.E. 275; Butler v. Ry. Co., 90 S.C. 273, 73 S.E. 185.) 3. Counsel for defendant, however, contend that the accident to plaintiff in being ......

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