Jones v. Grissett

• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: LITTLEJOHN; MOSS
• Citation: Jones v. Grissett, 186 S.E.2d 829, 258 S.C. 22 (S.C. 1972)
• Decision Date: 15 February 1972
• Docket Number: No. 19369,19369
• Parties: Peach Ella JONES et al., Respondents, v. Robert L. GRISSETT and Mary M. Hughes, of whom Robert L. Grissett isAppellant.

Page 829

186 S.E.2d 829

258 S.C. 22

Peach Ella JONES et al., Respondents, v. Robert L. GRISSETT and Mary M. Hughes, of whom Robert L Grissett isAppellant.

No. 19369.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

Feb. 15, 1972.

J. Reese Daniel, Columbia, for appellant.

Herbert W. Louthian, Columbia, for respondents.

LITTLEJOHN, Justice:

These four actions were commenced to recover damages alleged to have been sustained in a motor vehicle collision at the intersection of Farrow Road and Beltline Boulevard under a traffic signal light in Columbia.

All plaintiffs were occupants of an automobile driven by plaintiff Inez Mosby. The cases were consolidated for trial. The plaintiffs sued the two drivers to two separate vehicles with which the Mosby car collided. The jury returned verdicts in favor of all of the plaintiffs against the defendant Grissett only, thereby exonerating defendant Hughes.

At appropriate stages of the trial, counsel for the defendant Grissett moved for a directed verdict and for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, and also moved in the alternative, for a new trial, alleging errors committed by the trial judge. All motions were overruled. Defendant Grissett has appealed.

The evidence reveals that the Mosby car was the third vehicle among about twenty motor vehicles which were proceeding from the home of a deceased person to a funeral home where a funeral was to be conducted. The lead car was a limousinetype vehicle often referred to as a funeral 'family car.' All other vehicles were ordinary automobiles and were burning headlights.

Plaintiff Mosby testified that as she approached the intersection on Farrow Road the traffic signal light was green, and that it changed to caution while she was in the intersection. Farrow Road and Beltline Boulevard cross at approximately 90 angles. Defendant Grissett testified that his car and the car of the defendant Hughes, on Beltline Boulevard, pulled up to the traffic signal light on caution, and stopped. He said that when the light controlling his movement turned green both his car and Hughes' proceeded into the intersection. The collision occurred at that time.

It is not necessary to review any other evidence to determine whether the trial judge should have granted a directed verdict, as argued by appellant. The testimony recited made a jury issue and we find no error on the part of the judge in refusing to dismiss the case as a matter of law. It was for the jury to say which witnesses were telling the truth.

Defendant Grissett contends that the verdict in favor of the defendant Hughes acted to exonerate him also. We think the contention without merit. It would be just as logical to argue that since the jury found against Grissett, Hughes should be restored as a defendant. The evidence against the two defendants was not identical. It is sufficient to say that the evidence created jury issues upon which Grissett may be held liable. The jury's exoneration of Hughes leaves Grissett in the same position he would have been had the plaintiffs elected, in the first instance, to sue him alone.

We now consider those exceptions which charge error on the part of the trial juddge in refusing a new trial. Error is alleged judge in refusing a new trial. Error is alleged Section 46--304 of the Code, which reads as follows:

'Obedience to traffic-control devices required.--The driver of any vehicle shall obey the instructions of any official...