Oglesby v. Smith, 19418

• Decision Date: 12 May 1972
• Docket Number: No. 19418,19418
• Citation: 188 S.E.2d 856,258 S.C. 392
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: Arstrilla OGLESBY, as Temporary Administratrix of the Estate of Willie Louis Oglesby, Respondent, v. Samuel SMITH, Appellant.

Page 856

188 S.E.2d 856

258 S.C. 392

Arstrilla OGLESBY, as Temporary Administratrix of the Estate

of Willie Louis Oglesby, Respondent, v. Samuel SMITH, Appellant.

No. 19418.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

May 12, 1972.

Rufus M. Ward, of Ward, Howell, Barnes & Long, Spartanburg, and Jonathan Z. McKown, Gaffney, for appellant.

Saint-Amand & Thompson, gaffney, for respondent.

BUSSEY, Justice.

In this wrongful death action plaintiff's intestate, Oglesby, was a passenger in an automobile operated by the defendant when the same was involved in an accident on March 1, 1970. He died eighteen days later from a subdural hemorrhage. Upon trial, a motion of defendant for a directed verdict was overruled and a verdict for plaintiff ensued. The sole question on appeal is whether there was any competent evidence of causal connection between an injury received in the accident and the hemorrhage from which Oglesby admittedly died.

While there are conflicts in the evidence and differing reasonable inferences therefrom, it is elementary that in determining whether or not a directed verdict should have been granted all of the evidence and the inferences reasonably deducible therefrom have to be viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. The disposition of this appeal is controlled by the principles enunciated in the case of Grice v. Dickerson, 241 S.C. 225, 127 S.E.2d 722, from which we quote the following,

'The rule has been established in this State that 'when the testimony of medical experts is relied upon to establish causal connection between an accident and subsequent disability or death, in order to establish such, the opinion of the experts must be at least that the disability or death 'most probably' resulted from the accidental injury.' Cross v. Concrete Materials, 236 S.C. 440, 114 S.E.2d 828.

'Where, however, the testimony of medical experts is not solely relied upon to establish such causal connection, whether the presence or absence of such medical testimony is conclusive depends upon the particular facts and circumstances of the case.'

Viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, briefly the facts are as follows. The accident was a serious one, Oglesby sustaining a blow to and cut on the forehead and being rendered unconscious. He was hospitalized but discharged on March 4th. He was returned to the hospital on March 18th in a comatose condition and died that night. While only 27 years of age, he had previously had difficulty with and been treated for hypertension, and his blood pressure was excessively high upon his return to the hospital on March 18th. There is no suggestion, however, that he showed any symptoms of hypertension while hospitalized from March 1st to ...