Samuel v. Mouzon, No. 0255

• Court: Court of Appeals of South Carolina
• Writing for the Court: SANDERS
• Citation: 320 S.E.2d 482,282 S.C. 616
• Parties: Willis SAMUEL, Respondent, v. William David MOUZON and Eugene Fulton, Defendants of whom William David Mouzon is the Appellant. Appeal of William David MOUZON. . Heard
• Docket Number: No. 0255
• Decision Date: 27 June 1984

Page 482

320 S.E.2d 482 282 S.C. 616 Willis SAMUEL, Respondent,
v.
William David MOUZON and Eugene Fulton, Defendants of whom
William David Mouzon is the Appellant.
Appeal of William David MOUZON. No. 0255. Court of Appeals of South Carolina. Heard June 27, 1984.
Decided Sept. 10, 1984.

Page 483

[282 S.C. 617] Wm. Reynolds Williams of Willcox, Hardee, McLeod, Buyck & Baker, Florence, for appellant.

W.E. Jenkinson, III of Jenkinson & Jenkinson, Kingstree, for respondent.

[282 S.C. 618] SANDERS, Chief Judge.

Respondent Willis Samuel sustained certain personal injuries as a passenger of a vehicle involved in a head-on collision with another vehicle driven by appellant William David Mouzon. Samuel was awarded a jury verdict in his action for damages based upon Mouzon's alleged negligence, and Mouzon appeals. We affirm.

On the day of the collision, Samuel and three other passengers were returning from Kingstree, South Carolina, in a Ford van being driven by Eugene Fulton. Mouzon was driving a Ford Maverick in the opposite direction, toward Kingstree. Samuel testified that as the van rounded a

Page 484

curve it collided with the Maverick which was in its lane of travel. He also testified the van was going 40-45 m.p.h. in its proper lane at the time, to the right of the center line, and Fulton had no time to avoid the accident. Samuel further testified the lights of the Maverick did not flash or dim prior to the collision. Mouzon testified he had been on the highway for several miles and was driving 50-55 m.p.h. when he encountered the van in his lane. He said that in an effort to avoid the collision he sounded his horn, flashed his lights and drove onto the right shoulder, so that only his left two tires remained on the highway.

A highway patrolman testified he arrived at the scene after the collision and found debris from it in the center of Mouzon's lane. In addition, he testified he found one continuous skid mark near the edge of the pavement in Mouzon's lane. According to his testimony, this mark eventually left the highway and extended onto the shoulder. He also testified he had a conversation with Fulton at the hospital after the accident in which Fulton told him about a tire on the van blowing out, and in fact, one of its tires was blown out.

Fulton testified, essentially confirming the testimony of Samuel. He testified further that Mouzon had turned onto the highway from a side road just prior to the collision, without first stopping, and the van did not leave its proper lane until after the collision. He also testified new tires had been put on the van two months before the collision and said he did not [282 S.C. 619] recall seeing or talking to the patrolman at the hospital.

The owner of the van testified, confirming Fulton's testimony about the van's having new tires. He further testified he saw both Fulton and the patrolman at the hospital, but said Fulton was "in bad shape" and "wasn't able to talk." He said he asked the patrolman to leave Fulton alone because "he wasn't in no shape to talk to him." In addition, the owner testified he returned to the scene of the collision early the next morning and found antifreeze from the van in the center of Fulton's lane. He went on to testify that the van's radiator had burst and its left front bumper was pushed into the left front tire.

One of the three other passengers in the van also testified Mouzon was traveling in the wrong lane and the tire on the van did not blow out prior to the collision. He confirmed Samuel's testimony concerning the speed of the van and the fact that Mouzon did not dim his lights.

The jury returned a verdict for Samuel for actual and punitive damages.

In an action at law tried by a jury, a reversal of the jury's verdict can only result when the only reasonable inference from the evidence is contrary to the factual findings implicit in the verdict. Willis v. Floyd Brace Co., Inc., 279 S.C. 458, 309 S.E.2d 295 (S.C.App.1983). We are not at liberty to substitute our view of the evidence for the verdict of the jury. Gurley, et al. v. United Services Automobile Association, 279 S.C. 449, 309 S.E.2d 11 (S.C.App.1983). Of course, it is also our duty to correct any error of law. South Carolina Law Enforcement Division v. The "Michael and Lance," 315 S.E.2d 171 (S.C.App.1984). We first address a question of law raised by Mouzon.

I

Mouzon first argues the trial judge erred in excluding the proffered testimony of the highway patrolman which would have shown Fulton was charged with driving left of center and forfeited bond on that charge. This testimony was proffered prior to and in anticipation of the trial judge's ruling it inadmissible. Although no ground for admissibility was asserted at trial, Mouzon now argues the testimony is admissible as an admission of a party opponent and for impeachment purposes.

[282 S.C. 620] It is well settled that while a criminal conviction is not a binding adjudication of a subsequent civil action based on the same facts, a judgment on a plea of guilty may...