Howle v. Woods, 17275

Decision Date15 March 1957
Docket NumberNo. 17275,17275
Citation231 S.C. 75,97 S.E.2d 205
PartiesGeorge C. HOWLE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. J. G. WOODS, d/b/a Woods Pontiac, and Charles Woods, Defendants-Respondents.
CourtSouth Carolina Supreme Court

LeRoy M. Want, Darlington, John F. Hussey, Florence, for appellant.

Robert L. Kilgo, Darlington, for respondents.

G. DUNCAN BELLINGER, Acting Associate Justice.

This appeal arose out of an automobile collision which occurred on the night of April 13, 1955, in which both automobiles were badly damaged. The plaintiff-appellant's complaint seeks property damages to plaintiff-appellant's automobile.

From the record in the case, it appears that the case was tried before Honorable Malcolm K. Johnson, Judge of the Civil and Criminal Court of Darlington and a jury and resulted in a verdict for the defendants-respondents. For reasons not here material, a new trial was granted. The case again came on for trial before Judge Johnson and a jury.

At the close of the testimony, the plaintiff-appellant made a motion for a judgment in his favor in the sum of $2,795. The grounds of the motion briefly summarized are that the proximate cause of plaintiff-appellant's damage was the violation by the defendants-respondents of the following statutes, to wit:

'(a) Section 46-384, in failing to sound his horn so that plaintiff's driver would be called upon to yield the right of way.

'(b) Section 46-582, in failing to sound horn when necessary for safe operation.

'(c) Section 46-361, in driving at a speed greater than was reasonable and prudent under the circumstances and without regard to the actual and potential hazards then existing.

'(d) Section 46-393, in following another vehicle 'more closely than is reasonable and prudent' without 'due regard for the speed of such vehicle'.'

Judge Johnson overruled plaintiff-appellant's motion for a directed verdict and submitted the case to the jury. Again the jury found for the defendants-respondents.

Thereafter the plaintiff-appellant moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or in the alternative for a new trial upon the same grounds as his motion for a directed verdict. That motion was overruled.

Plaintiff-appellant then appealed to the Court of Common Pleas for Darlington County upon the same grounds upon which his motion for a directed verdict was based. The appeal came on to be heard before the Honorable J. Woodrow Lewis, Resident Judge of the Fourth Judicial Circuit. After argument of counsel, Judge Lewis, in a well considered order which will be reported herewith, ordered that the appeal be dismissed. The case is now before this Court on appeal from the order of Judge Lewis.

The evidence adduced in the Civil and Criminal Court of Darlington in the trial of the case is not produced nor summarized in the transcript of record, nor in the briefs of plaintiff-appellant or that of defendants-respondents. However, in the order of Judge Lewis, it is to be gathered that the following is the evidence produced at the trial:

That the defendants-respondents overtook and passed the automobile of the plaintiff-appellant while both were proceeding in the same direction; that the defendants-respondents' automobile was operating within the maximum permissible speed limit, which evidence is not contradicted by any other evidence; that the road was straight and visibility was not obstructed. There was no positive evidence that the defendants-respondents violated the speed law; that there was no intersection, hill crest, bridge or other road condition that would deny the defendants-respondents the right to pass the automobile of the plaintiff-appellant; that the plaintiff-appellant's automobile was in the left hand lane of the road, driving at a moderate speed; that no signal indicating a turn was given by the operator of the plaintiff-appellant's automobile; that the defendant-respondent Charles Woods blinked his lights to indicate his presence and proceeded to pass the plaintiff-appellant's automobile in the left hand lane as provided by law; that an instant before the impact, the plaintiff-appellant's automobile was turned suddenly in the path of defendants-respondents' automobile.

To the Order of Judge Lewis affirming the judgment of the lower Court, the plaintiff-appellant takes numerous exceptions, which it is not necessary to set out in detail for all of the exceptions raised are embodied in the three questions submitted by the plaintiff-appellant and concurred in by the defendants-respondents, as to the questions to be determined by the Court in this appeal:

1. Do photographs showing both cars to be total wrecks prove conclusively that driver of overtaking car involved in nighttime highway accident was negligent in some degree?

2. Does failure to sound horn in passing on the highway prove negligence by overtaking driver when his car is wrecked in collision with car turned suddenly into his path?

3. Do these factors, undisputed and taken alone, prove negligence on the part of driver of overtaking car in highway accident when passing another car:

(a) Overtaking car said to be going not over 55 MPH.

(b) Road wet or damp; moisture on windshield; visibility clear.

(c) Overtaking car's driver saw car ahead for more than half a mile.

(d) Overtaking car's driver did not sound horn but did give blinking lights signal (bright to dim, dim to bright).

(e) Pictures of cars showed both to be totally demolished?

The answer of the defendants-respondents denied the material allegations of the complaint and then alleges that plaintiff-appellant's damage was caused by plaintiff-appellant's sole negligence in making an improper...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Jumper v. Goodwin
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • February 7, 1962
    ...cause to a plaintiff's injury is, ordinarily a question for the jury. Green v. Sparks, 232 S.C. 414, 102 S.E.2d 435; Howle v. Woods, 231 S.C. 75, 97 S.E.2d 205; Field v. Gregory, 230 S.C. 39, 94 S.E.2d 15; Culbertson v. Johnson Motor Lines, 226 S.C. 13, 83 S.E.2d 338; Chapman v. Associated ......
  • West v. Sowell
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • February 27, 1961
    ...to submit to the jury the issue of negligence and contributory negligence. Woods v. Wilhelm, 232 S.C. 108, 101 S.E.2d 252; Howle v. Woods, 231 S.C. 75, 97 S.E.2d 205; Dean v. Temptron, Inc., 234 S.C. 532, 109 S.E.2d All drivers of vehicles using the highways are held to the exercise of due ......
  • Howle v. McDaniel
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • December 11, 1957
    ...taken to be true (as is required in considering direction of a verdict against him, Wynn v. Rood, 228 S.C. 577, 91 S.E.2d 276; Howle v. Woods, S.C., 97 S.E.2d 205; Woods v. Wilhelm, S.C., 101 S.E.2d 252, warranted inference that the collision resulted from the defendant's Dismissal of the c......
  • Childers v. Gas Lines, Inc.
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • August 15, 1966
    ...but the jury must also pass on the questions of inferences to be drawn from such facts after they have been determined. Howle v. Woods, 231 S.C. 75, 97 S.E.2d 205, 209; Moorer v. Dowling, 216 S.C. 456, 58 S.E.2d It is, of course, elementary that in order for a plaintiff to recover damages t......
  • 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