Hurd v. Williamsburg County, 3614.
| Decision Date | 17 March 2003 |
| Docket Number | No. 3614.,3614. |
| Citation | 353 S.C. 596,579 S.E.2d 136 |
| Court | South Carolina Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Jack HURD, Respondent, v. WILLIAMSBURG COUNTY and Williamsburg County Transit Authority, Appellants. |
Charles E. Carpenter, Jr. and S. Elizabeth Brosnan, of Columbia; Robin B. Lilley and Stephen Paul Bucher, of Charleston; for Appellants.
Ladson Fishburne Howell, Jr., and Richard G. Wern, of N. Charleston; Ronnie Alan Sabb, of Kingstree; for Respondent.
Jack Hurd brought this tort action against Williamsburg County and Williamsburg County Transit Authority (collectively referred to as the "County"), alleging damages resulting from an automobile-pedestrian collision that occurred when he was struck by an automobile after exiting a bus. A jury trial was held and Hurd was awarded $675,000 in damages. The verdict was reduced under the mandate of the South Carolina Tort Claims Act. The County appeals. We affirm.
Hurd boarded the County's bus around 6 a.m. on February 1, 1996 to go to work in Myrtle Beach. The bus driver usually drove another route, but was substituting for the regular driver that day. The bus route starts in the Sand Ridge Community, travels through Highway 261 to Highway 24, comes down to Highway 41/51 at Mingo's crossing, then goes through Georgetown and Highway 17 to Myrtle Beach.
On the morning of the accident, the bus driver pulled off onto the shoulder of Highway 41, a two-lane road, after several passengers requested he stop there so that they could get breakfast across the road at Mingo's Store. The normal procedure was for the bus driver to stop further down at the "Park and Ride," which is located on the same side of the road as Mingo's Store. The "Park and Ride" was erected by the County to serve as a transfer station for riders because of the congestion in the Highway 41 area.
After several passengers alighted onto the shoulder, Hurd, who had been sleeping, awoke and asked the bus driver to let him off so that he could also go to Mingo's store. According to the bus driver, he informed Hurd he was going to the "Park and Ride" and that Hurd could disembark there and go to Mingo's. Hurd, however, requested to go with the other passengers.
Hurd exited and walked to the rear of the bus. At trial, he claimed he looked to the left and right and did not see any vehicles on the highway. He stated he began to cross the highway when the bus started to pull away and was at an angle so he could not see to his right. Hurd continued across the highway and was struck by a car coming from the opposite direction. Hurd asserted: "I tried to look around the day that I got hit and my view was blocked, that's why I go [sic] hit." Hurd sustained substantial injuries as a result of being hit.
Booker Pressley, a former director of the County's transit authority, testified that the "Park and Ride" on Highway 41 was built because of the traffic congestion in the area and concern about rider safety. Pressley contended that the transit authority had a policy that the drivers were to let the passengers off at the "Park and Ride." Pressley maintained he issued a written warning to the bus driver following the accident for failing to discharge the passengers at the "Park and Ride." At his deposition, published to the jury, he declared:
Dr. Robert Roberts, an expert in the field of traffic and pedestrian safety design, professed at trial that it was unreasonable for the bus driver to debus the passengers on the shoulder of the highway. Roberts opined that the "Park and Ride" was a safer place for the passengers to be let off the bus. The following exchange occurred:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ralph v. McLaughlin
...opposing the motion would be reasonably possible under the facts as liberally construed in his favor." Hurd v. Williamsburg Cty. , 353 S.C. 596, 608, 579 S.E.2d 136, 142 (Ct. App. 2003). "The appellate court will reverse the [circuit] court's ruling on a [directed verdict] motion only when ......
-
Henson v. International Paper Co., 3745.
...in the mind of a reasonable juror. Hanahan v. Simpson, 326 S.C. 140, 149, 485 S.E.2d 903, 908 (1997); Hurd v. Williamsburg County, 353 S.C. 596, 609, 579 S.E.2d 136, 143 (Ct.App.2003). Yet, this rule does not authorize submission of speculative, theoretical, and hypothetical views to the ju......
-
Rivero v. Loftis
... ... Sheriff Steve Loftis, in his capacity as Sheriff of Greenville County, Appellant. Appellate Case No. 2016-000548 No. 2018-UP-340Court of ... proximate cause must be submitted to the jury." Hurd ... v. Williamsburg Cty., 353 S.C. 596, 613- 14, 579 S.E.2d ... ...
-
Rivero v. Loftis
...proximately caused the injury, then the question of proximate cause must be submitted to the jury." Hurd v. Williamsburg Cty., 353 S.C. 596, 613-14, 579 S.E.2d 136, 145 (Ct. App. 2003) (citations omitted), aff'd, 363 S.C. 421, 611 S.E.2d 488 (2005). Here, in its order denying a JNOV, the ci......
-
"it Must Be Something I Ate"
...(1972); Burr v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of Columbia, Inc., 256 S.C. 162, 166, 181 S.E.2d 478, 480 (1971). [7] Hurd v. Williamsburg County, 353 S.C. 596, 579 S.E.2d 136 (Ct. App. 2003). [8] 32 S.C. fur. Witnesses § 79 (2006) (citing Scoggins v. McClellion, 321 S.C. 264, 468 S.E.2d 12 (Ct. App......