Miller v. Ferrellgas, 26959.

• Court: United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
• Writing for the Court: Justice KITTREDGE.
• Citation: 709 S.E.2d 616,392 S.C. 295
• Parties: Janet MILLER, Petitioner,v.FERRELLGAS, L.P., INC., and Kenneth W. Ellis, Respondents.
• Docket Number: No. 26959.,26959.
• Decision Date: 04 April 2011

392 S.C. 295
709 S.E.2d 616

Janet MILLER, Petitioner,
v.
FERRELLGAS, L.P., INC., and Kenneth W. Ellis, Respondents.

No. 26959.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

Heard Jan. 7, 2011.Decided April 4, 2011.

[709 S.E.2d 617]

Charles E. Carpenter, Jr., Carmen V. Ganjehsani, both of Columbia, and James H. Moss, of Moss, Kuhn & Fleming, of Beaufort, for Petitioner.E. Mitchell Griffith, of Griffith, Sadler & Sharp, of Beaufort, Stephen L. Brown, Jeffrey J. Wiseman, and Russell G. Hines, all of Charleston, for Respondents.Justice KITTREDGE.

[392 S.C. 296] We granted a writ of certiorari to review the court of appeals' decision in Miller v. FerrellGas L.P., Inc., Op. No.2008–UP–116 (S.C. Ct.App. filed Feb. 13, 2008). We reverse.

[392 S.C. 297] I.

Petitioner Janet Miller brought this negligence action against Respondents FerrellGas and its driver, Kenneth Ellis, arising from a motor vehicle accident. Ellis properly stopped at a stop sign and then attempted a left turn onto the favored highway. Ellis entered the intersection although his view was obstructed by a temporary construction sign, and he could not see if there was oncoming traffic. FerrellGas's vehicle, driven by Ellis, collided with a vehicle in the intersection on the favored highway. Miller, a passenger in the vehicle on the favored highway, was seriously injured in the collision. It is conceded that the vehicle in which Miller was traveling was within the speed limit and free from any negligence.

At the close of Respondents' case, the trial court directed a verdict in favor of Miller, finding Ellis ¹ was negligent as a matter of law when he blindly pulled into the intersection. Following a plaintiff's verdict, Respondents appealed, contending that the directed verdict was in error because a question of fact was presented on the issue of negligence. The court of appeals agreed with Respondents and reversed the grant of the directed verdict. We reverse the court of appeals and reinstate the jury verdict in favor of Miller.

II.

In an appeal from the grant of a directed verdict, we must, like the trial court and court of appeals, view the evidence in a light most favorable to the non-movant, Ellis. Baggerly v. CSX Transp. Inc., 370 S.C. 362, 368, 635 S.E.2d 97, 100 (2006) (“[T]he evidence and all reasonable inferences therefrom must be viewed in the light most favorable to the party against whom the verdict was directed.” (emphasis omitted)). When viewed in that light, if there is any evidence that may be reasonably construed as creating a question of fact, the motion must be denied and the matter submitted to the jury. Id., 635 S.E.2d at 100—01 (“If the evidence is susceptible to more than one reasonable inference, the case should be submitted to the jury.”).

[392 S.C. 298] III.

We view the statutory and common law as clear in this area. South Carolina law speaks to a driver's duty...