Rothrock v. Copeland, No. 23468
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina |
| Writing for the Court | HARWELL; GREGORY |
| Citation | 409 S.E.2d 366,305 S.C. 402 |
| Parties | Deborah Ann B. ROTHROCK, as Executrix of the Estate of George B. Rothrock, Jr., deceased, Respondent, v. Timothy L. COPELAND, Petitioner. . Heard |
| Docket Number | No. 23468 |
| Decision Date | 12 June 1991 |
Page 366
George B. Rothrock, Jr., deceased, Respondent,
v.
Timothy L. COPELAND, Petitioner.
Decided Sept. 9, 1991.
Page 367
[305 S.C. 403] Jack D. Griffeth, of Love, Thornton, Arnold & Thomason, Greenville, for petitioner.
John Beasley, Beasley & Beasley, Greenwood, for respondent.
HARWELL, Justice:
We granted petitioner Timothy L. Copeland's petition for writ of certiorari to review the Court of Appeals' decision 1 in this wrongful death action. The trial judge granted summary judgment in favor of petitioner. The Court of Appeals reversed and ordered a new trial. Because we find the evidence presents no genuine issue of material fact, we reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals and reinstate the order of the trial judge granting petitioner's motion for summary judgment.
[305 S.C. 404] I. FACTS
Respondent Deborah Ann B. Rothrock commenced this wrongful death action after her husband (decedent) died from injuries sustained when his automobile and petitioner's truck collided. Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to respondent, the facts are as follows. The accident occurred at an intersection. Respondent was a passenger in an automobile driven by decedent. Respondent and decedent approached the intersection on the unfavored road. Stop signs and a flashing red light control entrance from the unfavored road onto the favored road. Petitioner approached the intersection on the favored road where a flashing yellow light cautions traffic at the intersection. Respondent and decedent stopped at the stop sign and then eased into the intersection. Petitioner, while traveling down the favored road, saw respondent and decedent's automobile in the intersection approximately thirty to forty feet before impact. Petitioner did not apply his brakes or swerve to avoid the accident.
The trial judge heard extensive argument on petitioner's motion for summary judgment. He also reviewed depositions, plats, photographs, and other evidence before him. Petitioner alleged decedent was barred from recovery because he had been contributorily negligent in pulling into the path of petitioner's truck. Respondent asserted that even if decedent had been contributorily negligent, the doctrine of last clear chance should impose liability on petitioner. The trial judge found that decedent contributed to his own death and that there were no facts to show petitioner could have avoided the accident. Because he could discern no genuine...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Estate of Haley ex rel. Haley v. Brown, No. 4140.
...of comparative negligence and is simply one factor to be considered in analyzing the parties' relative negligence); Rothrock v. Copeland, 305 S.C. 402, 405, 409 S.E.2d 366, 368 (1991) (holding last clear chance is not applicable where an emergency arises so suddenly that the defendant has n......
-
Staubes v. City of Folly Beach, No. 2834.
...inferences that might reasonably be drawn from record). If triable issues exist, those issues must go to the jury. Rothrock v. Copeland, 305 S.C. 402, 409 S.E.2d 366 Summary judgment is not appropriate where further inquiry into the facts of the case is desirable to clarify the application ......
-
Mauldin Furniture Galleries, Inc. v. Branch Banking & Trust Co., C.A. No. 6:10-240-TMC
...holds the evidence presents a genuine issue of material fact that should be left for determination at trial. See Rothrock v. Copeland, 305 S.C. 402, 405, 409 S.E.2d 366, 367-68 (1991) ("In determining whether summary judgment is appropriate, a court must not try issues of fact, but must dis......
-
Strother v. Lexington County Recreation Com'n, No. 2586
...therefrom. Gilliland v. Elmwood Properties, 301 S.C. 295, 391 S.E.2d 577 (1990). Id. at 297-98, 400 S.E.2d at 145. Rothrock v. Copeland, 305 S.C. 402, 409 S.E.2d 366 (1991), addresses summary In determining whether summary judgment is appropriate, a court must not try issues of fact, but mu......
-
Estate of Haley ex rel. Haley v. Brown, No. 4140.
...of comparative negligence and is simply one factor to be considered in analyzing the parties' relative negligence); Rothrock v. Copeland, 305 S.C. 402, 405, 409 S.E.2d 366, 368 (1991) (holding last clear chance is not applicable where an emergency arises so suddenly that the defendant has n......
-
Staubes v. City of Folly Beach, No. 2834.
...inferences that might reasonably be drawn from record). If triable issues exist, those issues must go to the jury. Rothrock v. Copeland, 305 S.C. 402, 409 S.E.2d 366 Summary judgment is not appropriate where further inquiry into the facts of the case is desirable to clarify the application ......
-
Mauldin Furniture Galleries, Inc. v. Branch Banking & Trust Co., C.A. No. 6:10-240-TMC
...holds the evidence presents a genuine issue of material fact that should be left for determination at trial. See Rothrock v. Copeland, 305 S.C. 402, 405, 409 S.E.2d 366, 367-68 (1991) ("In determining whether summary judgment is appropriate, a court must not try issues of fact, but must dis......
-
Strother v. Lexington County Recreation Com'n, No. 2586
...therefrom. Gilliland v. Elmwood Properties, 301 S.C. 295, 391 S.E.2d 577 (1990). Id. at 297-98, 400 S.E.2d at 145. Rothrock v. Copeland, 305 S.C. 402, 409 S.E.2d 366 (1991), addresses summary In determining whether summary judgment is appropriate, a court must not try issues of fact, but mu......