Taylor v. Bryant, 21198
| Decision Date | 16 April 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 21198,21198 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | Vernon S. TAYLOR, Jr., Respondent, v. Perry I. BRYANT and Pilot Freight Carriers, Inc., Appellants. |
Joseph R. Young of Young, Clement & Rivers, Charleston, for appellants.
David F. Groose of Uricchio, Howe & Krell, Charleston, for respondent.
Respondent Taylor brought suit against appellants Bryant and his employer Pilot Freight Carriers, Inc. for alleged negligent, wilful, wanton and reckless acts which caused respondent to suffer injury when he was struck by one of appellant carrier's trucks driven by appellant Bryant. The jury returned a verdict of actual damages only for respondent. During appropriate stages of the trial, counsel for appellants moved for nonsuit, directed verdict and judgment non obstante veredicto on the ground that respondent was guilty of contributory negligence, recklessness and wilfulness as a matter of law. These motions were denied and appellants have taken exception thereto. We reverse and remand for judgment to be entered for appellants.
The Pilot Freight Carriers, Inc. terminal entrance is on the left side of Pacific Avenue, about three hundred yards from the point where Pacific Avenue intersects with Banco Road just west of North Charleston. Pacific Avenue is a paved two-lane street which deadends just beyond the terminal entrance. The street is straight and the view is unobstructed. When entering the terminal, vehicles make the left turn onto a driveway which extends some fifty to sixty feet to a chain link fence gate; passing beyond the gate, the vehicle enters the terminal itself.
Respondent, though not employed by the appellant corporation (Pilot) and not a member of the Teamsters Union, was nonetheless employed by the union as a picket in a labor dispute with Pilot. Respondent's accustomed routine was to relax by the roadside until he became aware of an approaching Pilot truck at which time he would proceed to walk back and forth across the entrance driveway to Pilot's terminal. Respondent had been employed in this manner for three months altogether and for one month at this location in particular. According to respondent's testimony up to six rigs passed through to the terminal while he was picketing each day; if respondent was not clear of the driveway, the drivers would stop until respondent was clear. Otherwise, the drivers made the turn without stopping.
The incident which is the subject of this action occurred on April 9, 1974 at approximately 5:30 P.M. All parties agree that it was a clear day and that visibility was excellent. At this time, a Pilot rig driven by Bryant turned off of Banco Road onto Pacific Avenue and proceeded towards the Pilot terminal. Respondent was sitting close to Pacific Avenue across from the Pilot driveway and watching the Pacific-Banco intersection. There were also several persons seated in the back of a pickup truck on the left side of Pacific Avenue beyond the driveway and toward the deadend. When respondent saw the tractor-trailer rig turn off Banco Road, he immediately rose, crossed over Pacific Avenue, and began to walk back and forth across the drive about one or two feet off of Pacific. The driver Bryant meanwhile saw respondent cross the street and walk the picket line. Bryant, in fact, drove a route to Walterboro daily and testified that Taylor was on the picket line nearly every day when he returned.
During the trial one of respondent's witnesses testified that when a tractor-trailer rig makes a turn, the trailer has a tendency not to track in the same tire track as the tractor. Here, the trailer would track to the left of the tractor since the rig was turning to the left. In this instance, the apparent leftward motion of the trailer was the cause of respondent's being struck because the tractor swung clear of respondent while the trailer swung into him.
Whether a plaintiff is contributorily negligent in a given case is determined in reference to all the facts and circumstances of the particular case. See cases collected at 14 West's South Carolina Digest, Negligence: Key No. 65. Contributory negligence generally means the negligence of a plaintiff contributing to his injury as a proximate cause without which the injury would not have occurred. Pinkston v. Morrall, 236 S.C. 601, 115 S.E.2d 286 (1960). With an action at law tried by a jury, the jurisdiction of this court extends only to corrections of errors of law. Townes Associates, Ltd. v. City of Greenville, 266 S.C. 81, 221 S.E.2d 773 (1976); Odom v. Weathersbee, 225 S.C. 253, 81 S.E.2d 788 (1954). Viewing the facts in this case we have concluded that the trial court committed an error of law by not granting judgment non obstante veredicto since the facts and inferences drawn therefrom clearly indicate that respondent was contributorily negligent as a matter of law.
Respondent Taylor testified on direct examination as follows:
On cross-examination, respondent characterized the situation this way:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jones v. Sun Pub. Co., Inc.
...Line Railroad Co., 270 S.C. 362, 365, 242 S.E.2d 418; Bradburn v. Colonial Stores, Inc., 273 S.C. 186, 255 S.E.2d 453; Taylor v. Bryant, 274 S.C. 509, 265 S.E.2d 514; Bultman v. Barber, S.C., 281 S.E.2d 791; Whisenant v. James Island Corporation, S.C., 281 S.E.2d Under these prior cases, an......
-
Griffin v. Griffin
...in a particular case is to be determined by reference to all relevant facts and circumstances surrounding the case. Taylor v. Bryant, 274 S.C. 509, 265 S.E.2d 514 (1980); Toole v. Salter, 249 S.C. 354, 154 S.E.2d 434 (1967). If either the testimony is conflicting or the inferences to be dra......
-
Broom v. Southeastern Highway Contracting Co., Inc.
...a verdict in his favor for actual damages only, thereby exonerating it of any recklessness. Southeastern relies on Taylor v. Bryant, 274 S.C. 509, 265 S.E.2d 514 (1980), wherein the Supreme Court, citing Field v. Gregory, 230 S.C. 39, 94 S.E.2d 15 (1956), Utsey v. Williams, 229 S.C. 176, 92......
-
Gosnell v. South Carolina Dept. of Highways and Public Transp.
...cause of the collision was Gosnell's improper driving conduct, without which his injuries would not have occurred. Taylor v. Bryant, 274 S.C. 509, 265 S.E.2d 514 (1980); Odom v. Steigerwald, 260 S.C. 422, 196 S.E.2d 635 (1973). By driving his vehicle directly into the rear of the grader for......