McKibben v. Anthony

• Citation: 194 S.E. 446,185 S.C. 459
• Decision Date: 29 December 1937
• Docket Number: 14591.
• Parties: McKIBBEN v. ANTHONY et al. (two cases). DUNLAP v. SAME.
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina

194 S.E. 446

185 S.C. 459

McKIBBEN v. ANTHONY et al. (two cases).

DUNLAP v. SAME.

No. 14591.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

December 29, 1937

Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of York County; J. Henry Johnson, Judge.

Three separate actions by R. E. McKibben, by Mrs. Elizabeth McKibben Dunlap, and by Hazel McKibben against Graham H Anthony and others for injuries alleged to have been received by the plaintiffs in a collision between a pick-up truck in which they were riding and an automobile driven by defendant John V. Verner, in which defendants filed counterclaims. The jury returned a verdict for plaintiffs in the sum of $1 punitive and actual damages, and the court granted a new trial on the ground of inadequacy of damages, and defendants appeal.

Affirmed.

Finley & Spratt, of York, and Spencer & Spencer and B. J. White, all of Rock Hill, for appellants.

Wilson & Wilson and J. M. Blackmon, all of Rock Hill, and W. B Mack, of Fort Mill, for respondent.

STABLER Chief Justice.

These several cases arose out of the same state of facts, and are actions for damages, both actual and punitive, for injuries alleged to have been received by the plaintiffs in a collision between a Chevrolet pick-up truck, driven by Hazel McKibben, and in which the other plaintiffs were also riding and a Ford V-8 coach, driven by the defendant John V. Verner. The collision occurred on the afternoon of October 18, 1934 just within the limits of the city of Rock Hill, on the Rock Hill-Charlotte highway. It was alleged that the plaintiffs' injuries were caused by the negligence and recklessness of the defendant Verner in driving the Ford V-8 Coach at the time of the collision "in an unlawful, careless and reckless manner in wilful disregard of the ordinances of the city of Rock Hill and the statutes as to the law of the road; the specifications of alleged negligence being set forth in the complaints in the three causes."

The defendants denied all allegations of negligence and willfulness on their part, and alleged that the collision was caused by the careless and willful conduct of the plaintiff, Hazel McKibben, in driving the Chevrolet truck as was done by him at the time and place of the accident. They also asked, by way of counterclaim, for actual and punitive damages for injuries alleged to have been suffered by them in the collision. The net result was that the plaintiffs sued for damages in the total sum of $15,800 alleged to have grown out of willful and wrongful acts of the defendants; and the defendants sought to recover damages in a like amount growing out of alleged willful and wrongful acts of the plaintiffs. The defendant Verner, however, later withdrew his counterclaim against the plaintiff, Mrs. Elizabeth McKibben Dunlap.

By agreement of counsel, the cases were tried together in the court below, in December, 1935. At the conclusion of all the testimony, the defendants moved for a directed verdict upon grounds which we need not refer to. The motion was refused and the "jury returned a verdict for the respondents in the sum of one dollar punitive and actual damages." The plaintiffs then moved for a new trial "on the ground of inadequacy of damages." Judge Johnson granted the motion, and whether or not he was in error in so doing is the only question presented by the appeal.

Our leading decision on this subject is Bodie v. Railway Company, 66 S.C. 302, 44 S.E. 943, 946, where it was held that the presiding judge had the power, and that it was in his discretion, to grant a new trial for inadequacy of damages. The...