Moody v. Dillon Co, 15959.

Citation43 S.E.2d 201
Decision Date11 June 1947
Docket NumberNo. 15959.,15959.
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
PartiesMOODY. v. DILLON CO.

43 S.E.2d 201

MOODY.
v.
DILLON CO.

No. 15959.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

June 11, 1947.


[43 S.E.2d 201]

Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Dillon County; E. H. Henderson, Judge.

Action by Marvin F. Moody against the Dillon Company to recover damages for personal injuries. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

Bridges & Blackwell, of Florence, for appellant.

Samuel Want, James S. Verner, and Sam Rogol, all of Darlington, for respondent.

OXNER, Justice.

This is an action to recover damages on account of personal injuries sustained by respondent at about 4:00 P.M. on August 10, 1945, in the town of Dillon. Respondent alleged that his injuries resulted from the negligent operation of appellant's truck. At appropriate stages of the trial appellant

[43 S.E.2d 202]

moved for a nonsuit and a directed verdict upon the grounds (1) that there was no evidence of any actionable negligence on its part, and (2) that respondent was guilty of contributory negligence. These motions were overruled by the trial Judge and the case submitted to the jury, resulting in a verdict for respondent in the sum of $12,-000 actual damages. The trial Judge found that the amount of the verdict was excessive and ordered a new trial unless respondent remitted on the record the sum of $4,000. The remission was made and judgment entered against appellant in the sum of $8,000. This appeal followed.

The first question to be determined is whether the Court below erred in refusing appellant's motions for a nonsuit and a directed verdict.

Respondent was employed by the Dillon Cotton Company as warehouse manager and shipping clerk. There were about one hundred bales of cotton in the warehouse at Dillon, South Carolina which this Company desired to ship over the line of the Seaboard Air Line Railway Company, and there were about eleven bales of cotton on the platform of the Atlantic Coast Line freight depot which it desired to move into its warehouse. The Dillon Cotton Company did not have a truck available for use in moving this cotton and through respondent made arrangements with appellant Dillon Company whereby the Dillon Company agreed to rent to the Dillon Cotton Company a truck with a driver to be used in moving the cotton, for which services appellant charged 15¢ for each bale of cotton moved. (The two companies have strikingly similar names and both operate cotton warehouses at Dillon, South Carolina, but they are separate and distinct corporations and have no connection with each other.) The driver of the truck was an employee of appellant and his sole duty was to drive this truck; he had nothing whatever to do with the loading and unloading of the cotton, which was done by respondent and four Negro helpers. The manual labor of loading and unloading was done by the helpers under the supervision of respondent who selected the bales to be moved and did the necessary checking. The truck used was a 1942 Chevrolet. It had an enclosed metal cab with a rear window and a flat body about twelve feet long upon which could be loaded about ten bales of cotton.

The parties commenced this work about 9:30 A.M. on the day of the accident. The weather was clear. They first proceeded to move the cotton from the warehouse and load same in the box cars on the siding at the freight depot of the Seaboard Air Line Railway. This required about ten trips. The driver of the truck was unfamiliar with the cotton to be moved and respondent or one of his helpers would direct him where to park and when to move. In moving this cotton it became necessary from time to time for respondent to go on the truck and check the numbers on the bales to see if they corresponded with the list of cotton to be moved. The respondent and his helpers were frequently going on and off the truck while it was parked for loading and unloading. After the last of the cotton to be shipped was taken to the Seaboard Air Line Railway depot and the final car loaded, respondent told the driver to bring the truck to the Atlantic Coast Line depot where there were eleven bales of cotton to be moved to the warehouse for restorage. It was then approaching four o'clock in the afternoon.

These eleven bales were scattered among about thirty-five bales of cotton standing on the platform against the wall of the Atlantic Coast Line freight depot and extending for a distance of approximately one hundred feet along this platform. The platform was about five feet wide and between the cotton and the edge of the platform there was a space of about two feet which was sufficient for a person to walk on in checking the cotton. It was necessary for respondent to go through all of this cotton and pick out the eleven bales to be moved which was done by checking the numbers on the tags attached to the bales.

When respondent first arrived at the depot, he had some difficulty in identifying...

To continue reading

Request your trial

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