Tucker v. Albert Rice Furniture Sales, Inc., 1105
| Decision Date | 19 January 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. 1105,1105 |
| Court | South Carolina Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Gloria Denise TUCKER, Appellant, v. ALBERT RICE FURNITURE SALES, INC., Harlan Howard Jones and Hubert Chesson, Jr., Respondents. . Heard |
M. Terry Haselden of Faucette, Haselden & Harris, Spartanburg, for appellant.
Stephen S. Wilson and C. Roland Jones, Jr., of The Ward Firm, Spartanburg, for respondents.
Gloria Denise Tucker (Tucker) sued Albert Rice Furniture Sales, Inc., Harlan Howard Jones and Hubert Chesson, Jr., (Chesson) for personal injuries arising from a motor vehicle collision. The trial judge granted a directed verdict in favor of Chesson. The jury returned a verdict for $15,000 against the remaining defendants. Tucker made a post-verdict motion for an additur or in the alternative for a new trial as to damages. The defendants made a post-verdict motion for a judgment n.o.v. The trial judge granted the defendants' motion for judgment n.o.v. We reverse and remand for a trial de novo as to Chesson and a new trial as to damages against the remaining defendants.
On December 24, 1982, Tucker, accompanied by her seven-month old daughter, was driving an automobile. She crossed a bridge over Interstate 85, heading east on U.S. Highway 221 toward Spartanburg. She testified that she slowed to 30 or 35 m.p.h. because of the traffic exiting from the interstate; she drove about one-tenth of a mile down from the top of the bridge and around a curve. Her car collided with a truck which had pulled out of a Mini Mart parking lot and was crossing U.S. 221, thereby blocking the lane of traffic on which Tucker was driving her automobile. The truck was making a left turn, westward onto Highway 221. Because of the need to negotiate a dip in the pavement between the parking area and the road, the turn was "like a U-turn."
It was dusk. The truck driver, Jones, first saw Tucker's car in his side mirror as he was pulling out at about 5 m.p.h. Tucker's car was then about 30 to 35 feet away. Jones' testimony is that he did not look to the left until he saw her headlights in the side mirror. He was unable to estimate her speed. Chesson, Jones' travel and business partner, testified on deposition that he first noticed Tucker's headlights through the back window of the truck and that she was then about 50 feet away. Chesson testified that Tucker "was flying." Chesson also said that Jones said "that car ain't going to stop" and that Jones then "goosed" the truck to "get out of her way."
Tucker testified she first noticed the truck stopped in the far driveway of the Mini Mart and that the truck pulled out in front of her. She testified that she was traveling in the eastbound lane nearest the center of the highway and was about two car lengths away when she first saw the truck. She remembered nothing else until she woke up in the hospital.
At the moment of the impact, the truck had pulled onto the highway making its left turn in such a way that its front wheels had partially crossed the yellow center lines and its headlights were directed toward traffic coming down from the bridge. Tucker's car, according to the highway patrol officer who investigated the accident, "ran up under the truck just behind the cab and the fuel tank of the truck."
Tucker's jaw was broken and wired shut approximately six to ten weeks. Her medical bills were $6,419.23 and her lost earnings were $2,752.32. Tucker's witness, Dr. Butehorn, testified that Tucker had permanent scarring on her lip, chin and neck; there was no testimony that she had long-term disability. There was medical testimony to the effect that her scarring could be helped by plastic surgery with an estimated cost of between $1,750 and $2,500. Tucker also testified about her pain and suffering.
The parties stipulated that Jones was the agent of defendant Albert Rice Furniture Sales, Inc. Chesson testified that he and Jones had taken Rice's truck to Atlanta on consignment to sell furniture and that they were on their way home to North Carolina with some unsold furniture when the accident occurred. On the trip they shared the driving. The arrangement between Chesson and Jones was that they would split the profits with Rice and divide their portion between themselves.
The issues presented are whether (1) the trial judge erred in granting the post-judgment motion for judgment n.o.v. in favor of Jones and Albert Rice Furniture Sales, Inc., (2) the trial judge erred in granting a directed verdict for Chesson, (3) the trial judge erred in the jury...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Orangeburg Sausage Co. v. Cincinnati Ins. Co.
...recklessness are ordinarily for the jury and only rarely become questions of law for the court. See Tucker v. Albert Rice Furniture Sales, Inc., 295 S.C. 119, 367 S.E.2d 427 (Ct.App.1988) (where there is any uncertainty as to the existence of contributory negligence, the question of whether......
-
Wallace v. Owens-Illinois, Inc.
...ordinarily a question of fact for the jury and only rarely becomes a question of law for the court. Tucker v. Albert Rice Furniture Sales, Inc., 295 S.C. 119, 367 S.E.2d 427 (Ct.App.1988). In determining whether a plaintiff is contributorily negligent as a matter of law, the evidence must b......
-
Felder v. K-Mart Corp.
...is required to submit the issues to the jury. Graham v. Whitaker, 282 S.C. 393, 321 S.E.2d 40 (1984); Tucker v. Albert Rice Furniture Sales, 295 S.C. 119, 367 S.E.2d 427 (Ct.App.1988). In ruling on motions for directed verdict, the trial court is required to view the evidence and the infere......