Jowers v. Dupriest
| Decision Date | 30 May 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 18659,18659 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | T. J. JOWERS, Jr., Respondent, v. Earl R. DUPRIEST, Jr., Appellant. Samuel M. HAIR, Respondent, v. Earl R. DUPRIEST, Jr., Appellant. |
Joseph L. Nettles, Columbia, for appellant.
E. P. Rish, Lexington, Robert E. Johnson, Aiken, for respondents.
These two actions, arising out of the same automobile accident, were tried together by consent of the parties and resulted in verdicts for actual damages in favor of T. J. Jowers, Jr., and actual and punitive damages in favor of Samuel M. Hair, the respondents herein, against Earl R. Dupriest, Jr., the appellant herein.
The accident occurred at about 3:00 o'clock P.M. on January 15, 1964, on Highway No. 215, approximately four miles north of the City of Aiken, in Aiken County, South Carolina, when a Chevrolet truck owned by Jowers and driven by Hair was in collision with a Dodge automobile owned and driven by the appellant herein. The action of Jowers was one for property damage and that of Hair was for personal injuries.
Timely motions for a directed verdict and for judgment Non obstante veredicto were made on two grounds: (1) that there was no evidence of actionable negligence on the part of the appellant; and (2) that the respondents were guilty of contributory negligence. These motions were refused and this appeal followed. The question for determination here is whether the trial judge erred in refusing the motions of the appellant.
The respondents allege in their complaints that Hair was driving a Chevrolet Panel truck in a southerly direction along Highway No. 215 and made a left turn therefrom and had entered a private driveway and that the appellant, operating a Dodge automobile in a northerly direction, drove into said private driveway and collided with the Chevrolet truck, causing damage to the truck and personal injury to Hair. It is alleged that the damage and injury were proximately caused by the negligence and willfulness on the part of the appellant in that his automobile was being driven at a rate of speed in excess of the posted speed limit and too fast for the conditions then and there existing; in failing to keep a proper lookout, and in failing to keep the automobile under proper control.
The answer of the appellant denied any wrongful conduct on his part and alleged that as he was meeting the Chevrolet truck such turned suddenly to the left into the path of appellant's automobile and by reason thereof it was impossible for him to avoid colliding with the Chevrolet truck. It is then alleged that the proximate cause of respondents' injury was either the sole negligence and willfulness of Hair of his contributory negligence and willfulness. The appellant also filed a counterclaim.
In considering whether the court below erred in refusing the motions made by the appellant we must view the evidence and the inferences fairly deducible therefrom in a light favorable to the respondents. If more than one reasonable inference can be drawn from the evidence the case must be submitted to the jury. Shearer v. DeShon, 240 S.C. 472, 126 S.E.2d 514.
Hair was employed by Jowers who owned and operated Williston Cleaners and drove the truck to pick up and deliver clothes. At the time of the accident he was going to the home of one Eubanks and in order to reach his distination it was necessary for him to make a left turn from Highway 215 into the private driveway leading to the Eubanks residence. Hair testified that before he turned into the private driveway he gave a left turn signal for more than 100 feet, stopped, looked in both directions, and after ascertaining that there was no traffic in sight, proceeded to make the left turn across the northbound lane of Highway 215. He testified that after he had negotiated his left turn and was some 20 or 30 feet into the Eubanks driveway, clear of the paved road and shoulder, he heard a noise and looked to his right and saw the appellant's car coming sideways and it struck his truck on the right-hand door, knocking it off the driveway and into a ditch.
The officer who investigated the collision stated that the posted speed limit where the accident occurred was 45 miles per hour and the appellant admitted to him that he was traveling between 55 and 60 miles per hour. This officer said that he found in the northbound lane of the highway skid marks approximately 180 to 200 feet in length leading to the Chevrolet truck. This officer testified that the day was clear and the pavement dry. This officer estimated the distance from the point of collision to the crest of a hill towards the south, this being the direction from which the appellant came, to be approximately 500 feet and that the road from that point was level, straight and there were no...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ballou v. Sigma Nu General Fraternity
...of the defendant is willful, the contributory negligence of the plaintiff does not bar him from recovery. See Jowers v. Dupriest, 249 S.C. 506, 154 S.E.2d 922 (1967) (contributory negligence is not a defense to actionable On the question of Barry's contributory recklessness, the evidence pe......
-
Wise v. Broadway
...held that causative violation of a statute is evidence of recklessness, wilfulness and wantonness." See also Jowers v. Dupriest, 249 S.C. 506, 154 S.E.2d 922 (1967), wherein Chief Justice Moss, writing for the Court, stated, "It is well settled that causative violation of a statute constitu......
-
Adams v. Hunter
...of an applicable statute constitutes actionable negligence and is evidence of recklessness and willfulness. Jowers v. DuPriest (1967), 249 S.C. 506, 154 S.E.2d 922. The test by which a tort is characterized as "reckless, willful or wanton" is where it has been committed in a manner and unde......
-
Easler v. Pappas, 18888
...lookout, is susceptible of more than one reasonable inference. This required the submission of the issue to the jury. Jowers v. Dupriest, 249 S.C. 506, 154 S.E.2d 922. The appellant's claim that the respondent was guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law raises no issue for dete......