Skipper v. Hartley
| Decision Date | 09 April 1963 |
| Docket Number | No. E157178,No. E127585,I,No. D287282,L,No. 18050,D287282,E127585,E157178,18050 |
| Citation | 242 S.C. 221,130 S.E.2d 486 |
| Parties | , 13 A.L.R.3d 426 Rufus SKIPPER, as Administrator of the Estate of Effie Squires Johnson, Respondent, v. Archie HARTLEY and one 1955 Ford Automobile bearing South Carolina Licenseeroy Sessions and one 1955 Pontiac Automobile bearing South Carolina Licensela W. Kennedy and one 1955 Oldsmobile Automobile bearing South Carolina License, of whom Archie Hartley is, Appellant. |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
Hope & Cabaniss, Charleston, for appellant.
H. T. Abbott, Conway, Rosen & Rosen, Georgetown, for respondent.
This appeal is from an action brought for actual and punitive damages for wrongful death by Rufus Skipper, as Administrator of the Estate of Effic Squires Johnson. The action was brought pursuant to Sections 10-1951 and 10-1952, Code of Laws of South Carolina, 1962, for the benefit of the husband and six children.
The complaint alleges that on May 13, 1961, Mrs. Johnson was riding as a passenger in an automobile operated by Lorenzer Bill Squires proceeding in a southerly direction on U. S. Highway 17, south of Georgetown. It is alleged that the defendants, Leroy Sessions and Archie Hartley and John Kennedy, the driver of the automobile owned by defendant, Ila W. Kennedy, were unlawfully racing defendant automobiles in a northerly direction on the same highway and that the automobile driven by defendant Sessions, while engaged in the unlawful act of racing, struck the automobile in which plaintiff's intestate was a passenger, resulting in her death.
The defendant Sessions failed to answer the complaint and was declared to be in default. Defendant Kennedy answered and, thereafter, entered into a covenant with plaintiff not to sue in the sum of $2,733.33. Defendant Hartley answered in the form of a general denial.
The case was tried before the Honorable John Grimball and a jury, resulting in a verdict for plaintiff against defendant Sessions in the sum of $10,000.00 actual damages and $15,000.00 punitive damages and against defendant Hartley in the sum of $5,000.00 actual damages and $10,000.00 punitive damages. At appropriate stages motions were made for nonsuit, directed verdict, and judgment non obstante veredicto or in the alternative for a new trial on the grounds that there was no proof of actionable negligence or recklessness on the part of defendant Hartley which was a proximate cause of the death of plaintiff's intestate. These motions were denied.
In passing upon motions by defendants for nonsuit, directed verdict, judgment non obstante veredicto and alternatively for a new trial, the testimony must be viewed in the light most favorable to plaintiff, and if more than one reasonable inference can be drawn or if the inferences to be drawn from the evidence are in doubt, the case should be submitted to the jury, Crocker v. Weathers, 240 S.C. 412, 126 S.E.2d 335; however, if the evidence is susceptible of only one reasonable inference, the Court should decide the question as one of law, Green v. Bolen, 237 S.C. 1, 115 S.E.2d 667.
There is evidence from which it may reasonably be inferred that defendant Hartley was participating in a motor vehicle race or contest on Highway 17 in Georgetown County and as a result of said race one of the participants, Sessions, collided with the vehicle in which plaintiff's intestate was a passenger.
Section 46-356, Code of Laws of South Carolina, 1962, states:
'It shall be unlawful to engage in a motor vehicle race or contest for speed on any public road, street or highway in this State or to aid, abet or assist in any manner whatsoever in any such race or contest. * * *'
Chapman v. Associated Transport, Inc., 218 S.C. 554, 63 S.E.2d 465.
Appellant contends that there is no evidence indicating that his acts were the proximate cause of the death of plaintiff's intestate, but that the evidence is to the effect that his automobile had passed the car in which decedent was a passenger without coming into contact with said car.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lyon v. Ranger III, s. 87-1957
... ... of action" where blasting industry cooperated to set inadequate safety standards for blasting caps, members had "joint control of risk"); Skipper v. Hartley, 242 S.C. 221, 130 S.E.2d 486 (1963) (car racers each liable for all damages done by any one); Keel v. Hainline, 331 P.2d 397 (Okla.1958) ... ...
-
Ryan v. Eli Lilly & Co.
... ... The case in which a bystander is injured by a car involved in a drag race is a typical application of this theory. Skipper v. Hartley, 242 S.C. 221, 130 S.E.2d 486 (1963). All participants in the race are held jointly and severally liable to the injured party although ... ...
-
Haskins v. Fairfield Elec. Co-op.
... ... Gallmon v. American Employers' Insurance Co., 272 S.C. 369, 252 S.E.2d 124 (1979); Skipper v. Hartley, 242 S.C. 221, 130 S.E.2d 486 (1963). In ruling on the denial of these motions, this court must consider the evidence in a light most ... ...
-
Kennedy v. Carter, 18613
... ... Culbertson v. Johnson Motor Lines, 226 S.C. 13, 83 S.E.2d 338. As we held in the recent case of Skipper v. Hartley, 242 S.C. 221, 130 S.E.2d 486, ... 'Negligence need not be the sole cause of injury in order to impose liability, but need only be a ... ...
-
Interpretation of the Statutory Modification of Joint and Several Liability: Resisting the Deconstruction of Tort Reform
...1987). 441. See, e.g., Bierczynski v. Rogers, 239 A.2d 218 (Del. 1968); Lemons v. Kelly, 397 P.2d 784 (Or. 1964); Skipper v. Hartley, 130 S.E.2d 486 (S.C. 1963); Andreassen v. Esposito, 216 A.2d 607 (N.J. Super. 442. Lyons v. Premo Pharmaceutical Labs, Inc., 406 A.2d 185, 190 (N.J. Super. 1......