Jarvis v. Green, 19363

Citation257 S.C. 558,186 S.E.2d 765
Decision Date07 February 1972
Docket NumberNo. 19363,19363
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
PartiesViola JARVIS, Appellant, v. James Fulton GREEN, Respondent.

C. D. Hopkins, Jr., and E. Graydon Shuford, Hanahan, and W. Roy Shuford, Columbia, for appellant.

Joseph R. Young, of Young, Clement & Rivers, Charleston, for respondent.

MOSS, Chief Justice:

Viola Jarvis, the appellant herein, brought this action against James Fulton Green, the respondent herein, to recover actual and punitive damages for personal injuries sustained as a result of an automobile accident which occurred on S.C. Highway 642 in Charleston County on October 20, 1969.

The appellant alleges in her complaint that she was traveling in a northerly direction on S.C. Highway 642 and was stopping for a traffic light, when suddenly and without warning, the respondent drove his automobile into the rear of an automobile directly behind that of the appellant, causing it to strike her automobile with tremendous force thereby causing her serious and permanent personal injury.

The appellant alleged in her complaint that her personal injury was proximately caused by the negligence, carelessness, recklessness and willfulness of the respondent in the operation of his automobile in the following particulars: (a) in operating his automobile without having it under proper control; (b) in operating his automobile at a rate of speed that was greater than was prudent and reasonable under the circumstances; (c) in operating his automobile without maintaining a proper look out; (d) in failing and omitting to timely use and apply the brakes on his automobile; (e) in failing and omitting to reduce the speed of his automobile and stop the same after observing the appellant's automobile stopping for a traffic light; and (f) in following the motor vehicle immediately behind that of the appellant more closely than was reasonable and prudent and without due regard for the speed of such vehicle and the traffic upon the highway and in violation of Section 46--393, of the Code. The answer of the respondent was a general denial.

The case came on for trial before the Honorable G. Badger Baker, presiding judge, and a jury, at the 1971, April Term of the Court of Common Pleas for Charleston County. At the close of all of the evidence, the respondent moved for and was granted a directed verdict as to punitive damages. The issue of negligence and injury to the appellant was submitted to the jury, resulting in a verdict in the amount of $750.00, actual damages. The appellant moved for a new trial on the ground that the verdict was grossly inadequate. This motion was refused. This appeal followed.

The appellant poses two questions for determination by this Court. She asserts the presiding judge committed reversible error in directing a verdict against her as to punitive damages and in failing to grant her motion for a new trial on the grounds of inadequacy of the damages awarded.

The appellant asserts that the respondent violated Section 46--393, of the Code, which provides:

'The driver of a motor vehicle shall not follow another vehicle more closely than is reasonable and prudent, having due regard for the speed of such vehicles and the traffic upon and the condition of the highway.'

The determination of whether or not there has been a violation of this Statute is ordinarily a jury question. In West v. Sowell, 237 S.C. 641, 118 S.E.2d 692, it is said:

'Just how close to a vehicle in the lead a following vehicle, ought, in the exercise of ordinary care, be driven, just what precautions a driver of such a vehicle must in the exercise of ordinary care take to avoid colliding with a leading vehicle which slows, stops, turns, or swerves in front of him, * * * may not be laid down by any hard and fast or general rule. In each case except when reasonable minds may not differ, what due care so required, and whether it was exercised, is for the jury.'

The motor vehicle traffic on S.C. Highway 642 was controlled by traffic lights in accordance with Section 46--301 et seq., of the Code. The driver of any vehicle upon said highway is required by Section 46--304, of the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • Fairchild v. S.C. Dep't of Transp.
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • May 25, 2012
    ...requiring the submission of the issue of punitive damages to the jury.” Id. at 55, 240 S.E.2d at 520 (citing Jarvis v. Green, 257 S.C. 558, 186 S.E.2d 765 (1972) and Still v. Blake, 255 S.C. 95, 177 S.E.2d 469 (1970)). The Daniels Court concluded the trial court erred in holding there was n......
  • Fairchild v. South Carolina Dep't of Transp.
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • April 11, 2012
    ...requiring the submission of the issue of punitive damages to the jury." Id. at 55, 240 S.E.2d at 520 (citing Jarvis v. Green, 257 S.C. 558, 186 S.E.2d 765 (1972) and Still v. Blake, 255 S.C. 95, 177 S.E.2d 469 (1970)). The Daniels Court concluded the trial court erred in holding there was n......
  • Griffin v. Griffin
    • United States
    • South Carolina Court of Appeals
    • March 29, 1984
    ...ordinarily not be determined by the trial court as a matter of law but will usually be left for the jury to decide. Jarvis v. Green, 257 S.C. 558, 186 S.E.2d 765 (1972). Likewise, "what is the proximate cause of an injury is ordinarily a question for the jury" and "is to be determined as a ......
  • Cooper by Cooper v. County of Florence
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • April 16, 1991
    ...The determination of whether a motorist statute has been violated is ordinarily a question of fact for the jury. Jarvis v. Green, 257 S.C. 558, 186 S.E.2d 765 (1972); West v. Sowell, 237 S.C. 641, 118 S.E.2d 692 (1961). Similarly, the question of recklessness, willfulness, or wantonness is ......
  • 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