Humphries v. Stokes Bus Line

• Decision Date: 20 February 1942
• Docket Number: 15369.
• Parties: HUMPHRIES v. STOKES BUS LINE.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

18 S.E.2d 675

199 S.C. 132

HUMPHRIES v. STOKES BUS LINE.

No. 15369.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

February 20, 1942

Colin S. Monteith, Jr., and Charles I. Dial, both of Columbia, for appellant.

C T. Graydon and J. Bratton Davis, both of Columbia, for respondent.

FISHBURNE Justice.

The defendant, Stokes Bus Line, is engaged in the operation of motor busses as a common carrier for hire, and is appealing from an adverse judgment for actual damages awarded the plaintiff, predicated upon its negligent failure to properly heat the bus in which she was a passenger, by reason of which failure she was unduly exposed to the cold and made ill.

On the evening of December 24, 1937, the plaintiff, a young married woman, purchased from the defendant company a ticket from Columbia, South Carolina, to Darlington, South Carolina. The bus which she boarded was behind schedule when it left Columbia. Upon reaching Camden, an intermediate point, she was transferred to another bus, which proceeded toward Darlington behind an old bus operated by the defendant. When the old bus, which was filled with passengers, reached the small village of Antioch, about 9 o'clock P. M., it became disabled in consequence of a broken axle, and was stopped in front of a combination service station, store and residence. The plaintiff and other passengers destined for Darlington or points beyond Hartsville, were directed and required to get out of the bus in which they were riding, which was new, and transfer to the disabled bus. Their places in the new bus were then taken by passengers whose destination was Bishopville and Hartsville. The drivers of the two busses boarded the new bus and proceeded to Hartsville to obtain a relief bus which was to return to Antioch to transport the plaintiff and the other passengers who had been left there.

Up to this point, the evidence of the plaintiff and the defendant is in agreement. Beyond this point the evidence is in direct conflict.

According to the evidence for the plaintiff, no arrangements whatever were made by the agents of the defendant for the convenience and comfort of the plaintiff and the other passengers, so as to protect them from the freezing weather which prevailed. The lights in the disabled bus had been extinguished, the motor cut off, and the doors closed by the driver before he left on the other bus. The passengers including the plaintiff, were left on the side of the road exposed to the cold. After waiting there sometime, the plaintiff's husband who accompanied her, succeeded in opening the door of the bus and starting the motor, but being unfamiliar with the operation of the bus, he was unable to turn on the heat. After the bus was opened the plaintiff and other passengers secured seats, and remained there in the cold bus for two hours and a half, until the arrival of the relief bus. She testified that by reason of her exposure she was made ill, and contracted a severe cold which developed into serious sinus trouble, from which she was still suffering at the time of the trial. This testimony was supported by that of her attending physician.

The specific charge of negligence against the bus company is contained in Paragraph 5 of the complaint: "That in the broken down bus there was no heat or other accommodations and that the plaintiff and others were forced to sit in the cold in said bus for about two and a half hours and that the drivers of both busses went off and left the plaintiff and those in said bus without any protection whatsoever on the side of the road and that as a result thereof the plaintiff herein was caused to suffer great inconvenience, was not safely carried to her journey as required and contracted by said ticket, was left without protection on the side of the road, and was made sick and nervous, all to plaintiff's damage in the sum of Three Thousand ($3,000.00) Dollars."

It is alleged that the injury and damage to the plaintiff was caused by the negligence, wilfulness and wantonness of the defendant, its agents and servants. The defendant pleaded a general denial.

The defendant appeals from the action of the lower Court in refusing its motions for a nonsuit, directed verdict, and new trial, all of which were based upon the...