Sims v. Eleazer

• Decision Date: 13 April 1921
• Docket Number: 10607.
• Citation: 106 S.E. 854,116 S.C. 41
• Parties: SIMS v. ELEAZER ET AL.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

106 S.E. 854

116 S.C. 41

SIMS v. ELEAZER ET AL.

No. 10607.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

April 13, 1921

Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Richland County; Edward McIver, Judge.

Action by J. G. Sims, as administrator of the estate of Laura Bell Sims, against W. P. Eleazer and J. Albert Eleazer. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Fraser J., dissenting.

In refusing the charge, the judge stated:

"I do not charge the second request, although it is good law--practically just a copy of the statute; still I do not think it is applicable to this case."

The eighth exception was to the denial of plaintiff's motion for a new trial based on grounds raised by exceptions 1-6.

The evidence showed that plaintiff's intestate started on foot across the highway from the gate in front of her home and was struck by defendant's car, which was proceeding up a slight grade.

D. W Robinson, of Columbia, for appellant.

C. S Monteith and Nettles & Tobias, all of Columbia, for respondents.

WATTS J.

This was an action for damages for the negligent, willful, and wanton killing of the plaintiff's intestate by an automobile driven by the defendants. The cause was tried before his honor Judge Edward McIver and a jury at the February term of court, 1920, for Richland county, and resulted in a verdict in favor of the defendants, upon which judgment was entered, and plaintiff appeals.

Exceptions 1, 7, and 9 raise the contention that his honor was in error in not directing a verdict for the plaintiff as asked for that from all the evidence adduced at the trial no inference could be drawn of unavoidable accident, or no negligence on the part of the defendant, or of contributory negligence on the part of plaintiff's intestate.

The plaintiff's contention is that the automobile, at the time of the accident, was on the left side of the road, where it had no right to be, under the statute law of this state defining how the traveling public shall travel on the highways of the state, and that the automobile was not under control.

The wording of the statute does not require that in meeting and passing another a vehicle shall keep to the right. The statute does not contemplate that at all times a person traveling shall strictly comply with the terms of the statute. A person traveling a highway has the right to travel on either side of the road when no one is coming in the opposite direction, and he does not interfere with the traveling of another coming from the opposite direction, and in no manner impedes or obstructs the rights of others coming from an opposite direction. If he is meeting and passing, he must bear to the right and comply with the terms of the statute. In passing any one in front of him going in the same direction, he must pass him on the left, giving the one in front of him the benefit of bearing to the right. Any one passing him going in the same direction must pass on his left.

While these are the general rules that must be observed, yet, if any one, even though violating the rules of traffic, is about to be injured, in person or property, by a collision between them, he must exercise due care,...