Morrow v. Evans
| Decision Date | 14 April 1953 |
| Docket Number | No. 16733,16733 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | MORROW v. EVANS. |
N. A. Turner, Columbia, Gregory & Gregory, Lancaster, Smathers & Carpenter, Charlotte, N. C., for appellant.
Williams & Parler, Lancaster, for respondent.
In this action for $50,000 damages for wrongful death the verdict was for the plaintiff, now respondent, for $5,000 actual damages and $15,000 punitive damages, which the trial judge refused to set aside or reduce on motion for judgment non obstante veredicto or, in the alternative, for new trial.
The deceased was a young Air Force Sergeant, stationed at Shaw Field, which is near Sumter. About five o'clock A. M. in the pre-dawn darkness of February 11, 1950, he was traveling alone in a Studebaker passenger automobile South on U.S. Highway 521 about seven miles North of the city of Lancaster when he was in collision on a bridge with appellant's Diesel truck-trailer, which was loaded with eight hundred crates of Florida tangerines. It was driven by appellant's employee, Hawkins, and in the cab with him was a hitchhiker, Noel, who was picked up at Brunswick, Georgia, on the evening before. Although he had stopped for that and to rest and nap en route, he had covered about 270 miles in the seven hours immediately preceding the collision, according to his statement to the investigating patrolman. On the route were Savannah, Columbia, Lancaster and other cities, towns and villages, passage through which reduced his average speed.
The truck-trailer was 45 feet, 7 inches, in overall length. The truck or tractor was 80 inches wide at the front wheels, 92 inches at its rear wheels, and the trailer was 96 inches, or 8 feet, wide. The bridge, which has since been widened, was then 18 feet wide between curbs so that the trailer, to stay on its half of the bridge, had only 12 inches to spare. The darkness and the admitted speed of the heavy vehicle naturally added to the difficulty.
The truck approached the bridge downgrade and the driver testified that his speed was from 45 to 50 miles per hour. Before entering the bridge he saw the lights of decedent's approaching automobile. It appears that the collision occurred about 36 feet from the South end of the bridge which was 110 feet in length, from which it may be concluded that the automobile first entered the bridge and the truck-trailer, because of its great length, was not even completely on it when the collision occurred. That was the effect of the statement of the truck-driver to the patrolman who first reached the scene, as follows: 'I asked him what happened and he said that he came over this hill approaching this bridge and was driving approximately 45 to 50 miles an hour, and he saw this car coming across the bridge and he had entered the bridge--just entered the bridge when he collided.'
There was a highway sign, 'Narrow Bridge', which warned of the danger, and the truck-driver was familiar with it, having traveled the route many times before. The left front wheels of both vehicles were crushed but it appeared from the wreckage that the brunk of the blow was taken by the automobile on its side; it crashed the side rail of the bridge, opposite or near the point of impact, but did not go through it. The truck continued across the bridge, veered left across the highway beyond, went through a guard rail and turned over at the foot of the fill at a distance of about 250 feet from the point of collision. The automobile also cleared the bridge in its direction but traveled after the collision a little less than 100 feet and came to rest on the highway, turned to its left so that it had to be pushed to the right to clear the opposite traffic lane. The decedent received head injuries, which rendered him unconscious and caused his death a few hours later in the Lancaster hospital where he was taken by the first passing vehicle.
The accident was investigated by a State Highway patrolman who testified, as did two other patrolmen. The testimony which was directed to determination of the proximate cause of the collision related in the main to whether it occurred on the center line, which was marked, or on the automobile's side of the narrow bridge. Respondent and appellant produced witnesses who testified to scars and marks on the surface of the bridge, some of which they said resulted from the wreck. There was positive testimony to the effect that these markings indicated that the collision occurred on the automobile's side, from which it is inferable that the truck was across the center line at the time of the collision. The driver of it testified to the contrary and the hitch-hiker, riding on the driver's right, said that the truck was as near the bridge rail and curb as it reasonably or 'likely' should have been, but he could not say on which side of the center line the collision occurred. Numerous pictures of the bridge, made soon after the accident, were introduced. Two offered by respondent showed pockets on the center line which it was inferred were made by the iron spokes of the damaged left-front wheel of the truck. If that wheel was on the exact center of the bridge and following a straight course, the rear dual wheels and body of the truck and trailer were, of course, projected across the center and into the lane of approaching traffic. Moreover, it is the duty of the driver of a passing vehicle to keep all of it to his right of the center line and none on it. All of the evidence thereabout undoubtedly made an issue for the jury and it cannot be said that their verdict in favor of respondent was not reasonably supported by evidence which tended to prove fault in this particular in the operation of the truck. In addition, whether the speed with which the truck was attempted to be driven upon the dangerously narrow bridge, with the lights of decedent's approaching car visible beforehand to the driver, as he testified they were, constituted negligence, recklessness and wilfulness, was also an issue for the jury. Consideration of all of the evidence is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Robertsen v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
...Bus Lines, 191 S.C. 538, 5 S.E.2d 281 (1939) $100.00 actual, $400.00 punitive—breach of duty by common carrier; Morrow v. Evans, 223 S.C. 288, 75 S.E.2d 598 (1953) $5,000.00 actual, $15,000.00 punitive—auto collision; Weatherford v. Home Finance Co., 225 S.C. 313, 82 S.E.2d 196 (1954) $15.0......
-
Fairchild v. S.C. Dep't of Transp.
...negligence and is evidence of recklessness, willfulness and wantonness.” Id. at 46, 94 S.E.2d at 19 (citing Morrow v. Evans, 223 S.C. 288, 295, 75 S.E.2d 598, 601 (1953)); accord Padgett v. Colonial Wholesale Dist. Co., 232 S.C. 593, 103 S.E.2d 265 (1958); Vernon v. Atlantic Coast Line R. C......
-
Hall v. Walters, 16944
...discussion will be confined to the award of punitive damages. Such damages in the amount of $15,000 were affirmed in Morrow v. Evans, 223 S.C. 288, 75 S.E.2d 598, 601, where it was said: 'It may be conceded that in the view of this court it is excessive in the sense that it is unduly libera......
-
Padgett v. Colonial Wholesale Distributing Co., 17410
...Carolina Division, 169 S.C. 1, 167 S.E. 839; Dickson v. Inter-Carolinas Motor Bus Co., 161 S.C. 297, 159 S.E. 625.' In Morrow v. Evans, 223 S.C. 288, 75 S.E.2d 598, 601, this Court 'Causative violation of an applicable statute constitutes actionable negligence and is evidence of recklessnes......