Howey v. Jordan's, Inc., 16705
Decision Date | 22 January 1953 |
Docket Number | No. 16705,16705 |
Citation | 223 S.C. 71,74 S.E.2d 216 |
Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
Parties | HOWEY v. JORDAN'S, Inc. et al. |
Williams & Parler and James H. Howey, Lancaster, for appellant.
Gregory & Gregory, Lancaster, for respondents.
This case is before the court on appeal by the plaintiff from an order of his Honor, Joseph R. Moss, Circuit Judge, granting motion of the defendant, Jordan's, Incorporated, for a directed verdict. Upon this motion being granted plaintiff moved for a voluntary nonsuit as to the defendant, Crawford, which was granted.
We adopt the following clear statement from appellant's brief:
The complaint goes further and alleges in paragraph eight (8), subsection "P", as follows:
"(P) In that the driver of the defendant's, Jordan's Incorporated, truck failed and refused to make any reasonable effort to remove said truck from the main travelled portion of the right-hand lane of said highway going north, or to have the same removed therefrom, when he knew, or in the exercise of ordinary care should have known, that the parking of said truck in said highway created a dangerous condition thereon, and that other vehicles travelling along said highway were liable to run into and upon said truck, particularly the motor vehicle in which Plaintiff's intestate was riding."
The only question involved in this case is: Did the Trial Judge err in directing a verdict for the respondent on the ground that the appellant had failed to prove any negligence on the part of the respondent's agent and servant?
The Statute law applicable or pertinent to this action is contained in Section 109, Act No. 281, Acts and Joint Resolutions, General Assembly, June 7, 1949, of the State of South Carolina, 46 St. at Large, p. 501, as follows:
Section 162, Act No. 281, Acts and Joint Resolutions, General Assembly, 1949:
During the examination of the employee of the defendant, Jordan's, Incorporated, who was in charge of the truck involved in the collision from which this case originated, he testified as follows:
Then further, in examination of this same witness, he testified as follows:
Then further, in this same witness' testimony, he testified as follows:
In the trial of the case, D.V. Snipes, a witness for the plaintiff, testified as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Gray v. Barnes
...the highway is on the person who makes such stop. Ayers v. Atlantic Greyhound Corp., 208 S.C. 267, 37 S.E.2d 737, and Howey v. Jordan's Inc., 223 S.C. 71, 74 S.E.2d 216. When it is necessary for a motorist to stop his vehicle along the road, he has the duty, where it is reasonably possible,......
-
Suber v. Smith
...the highway, is on the person who makes such stop. Ayers v. Atlantic Greyhound Corp., 208 S.C. 267, 37 S.E.2d 737, and Howey v. Jordan's, Inc., 223 S.C. 71, 74 S.E.2d 216. When it is necessary for a motorist to stop his vehicle along the road, he has the duty, where it is reasonably possibl......
-
Dudley Trucking Co. v. Hollingsworth
...the decisions of this Court. Ayers v. Atlantic Greyhound Corporation, et al., supra, 208 S.C. 267, 37 S.E.2d 737; Howey v. Jordan's Inc., et al., 223 S.C. 71, 74 S.E.2d 216. TAYLOR, C. J., and MOSS, BUSSEY and BRAILSFORD, JJ., concur. ...
-
Collins v. Risner, 7864.
...the submission of such questions to the jury has been approved. Jackson v. Edmondson, Tex.Civ.App., 129 S.W.2d 369; Howey v. Jordans, Inc., 223 S.C. 71, 74 S.E.2d 216. However, here it clearly appears that the highway, at the point of collision, when first paved, consisted of a concrete str......