Turner v. Sinclair Refining Co.
| Decision Date | 20 March 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 19029,19029 |
| Citation | 173 S.E.2d 356,254 S.C. 36 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | Clyde TURNER, Respondent, v. SINCLAIR REFINING COMPANY, Appellant. |
Love, Thornton, Arnold & Thomason, Greenville, for appellant.
Riley & Riley, Greenville, for respondent.
In this action for damages for personal injuries the jury returned a verdict for both actual and punitive damages in favor of the respondent Turner. Timely motions for nonsuit, directed verdict and judgment non obstante veredicto were made by the appellant Sinclair Refining Co. and overruled, and the appeal is from the denial of such motions. Appellant contends that (1) there is no evidence of negligence on its part; (2) that respondent was barred from recovery by contributory negligence, willfulness, and/or assumption of risk; and (3) that there is no evidence of willfulness on the part of appellant which would support a verdict for punitive damages.
It is elementary that in determining whether the trial court acted properly in refusing the appellant's several motions, this court must view the evidence and the inferences reasonably deducible therefrom in the light most favorable to the respondent. We proceed to review the evidence and state the facts in the light of the foregoing principle. In the instant case there appear to be relatively few conflicts as to the facts, but there is sharp controversy as to the reasonable inferences deducible therefrom.
In 1953 appellant constructed and put into operation near Spartanburg a pipe line terminal where tank trucks or trailers of its customers were loaded with various types of petroleum fuel. Until November 1, 1966, the terminal was operated by a loading clerk in the employment of appellant, but on that date the terminal was converted to an automatic self-loading one, with no attendant in constant or immediate charge thereof.
This terminal device consisted in part of a raised platform which, according to appellant, was eight feet high, but according to respondent's witnsesses somewhat higher. At each end thereof there were steps leading to the platform. In the center of said platform there were pumps and seven downspouts for different types of fuel, each of which had a large weight on the end of it so connected that when not in use the downspout would be pulled back to the center of the roof over the platform. At one end of the platform there was a small office containing an electrical apparatus which activated the pumps.
The tanker trucks or trailers might be loaded from either side of this platform, and along each side thereof the deck or floor, where the drivers had to walk, was constructed of two metal plates, one above the other, two feet wide. The upper plate had holes punched in it two inches apart, the holes being punched upward approximately one-sixteenth of an inch, somewhat similar to a grater. The lower plate had holes punched in it at random every two feet, instead of every two inches. The idea of punching the holes in the upper plate upward was to improve traction, but there was evidence that the same had worn somewhat smooth through years of usage. The holes in both upper and lower plates were supposed to drain away any gasoline or fuel oil which might be spilled, but any spillage on the upper plate could not escape completely through the holes therein due to them being raised upward and could only escape completely by running off the sides onto the lower plate. With the relatively few holes in the under plate, any spillage had a tendency to collect on the lower plate and return to the upper plate, both through the holes and along the edges thereof, when the upper plate was stepped upon, but such condition was not noticeable to a casual observer. Along each side or edge of the platform there were four ropes approximately one and one-quarter inch in diameter, with knots tied therein, which hung from the roof of the loading platform and which were installed by the appellant when the terminal was converted to an automatic self-loading device. The purpose of these ropes was to allow the drivers to swing from the platform over to the catwalks along the tops of the tankers, no other means being installed to aid the drivers in getting to and from their respective catwalks.
The terminal was located upon a sizeable lot which was surrounded by a fence, with a gate leading into the terminal grounds. The various drivers had keys to the lock on this gate so that the terminal could be utilized twenty-four hours a day. To load a tanker, the driver first had to ground his truck and then insert a plastic card into the electrical apparatus in the office building at the end of the platform for the purpose of activating the machinery. He then had to switch on the particular pump he wished to use, and thereafter he had to pull down the particular downspout he wished, usually with his right hand, and with his left hand grab the large rope to help stabilize himself and swing over to the top of the tanker. He then had to go along the catwalk, holding the downspout, open the dome of the particular compartment to be filled, insert the downspout and by pulling another rope, attached to the downspout, start the fuel flowing into the particular compartment. The downspout had to be held or tied down to prevent it from retracting to the center of the building.
The respondent Turner was a driver for Webster Oil Company, a customer of the appellant. Prior to February 6,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Haskins v. Fairfield Elec. Co-op.
...obvious danger, then the question of whether Haskins assumed the risk of electrocution is also for the jury. Turner v. Sinclair Refining Co., 254 S.C. 36, 173 S.E.2d 356 (1970). We cannot say as a matter of law the trial judge erred in submitting these four issues to the jury. Yongue was cl......
-
Scott by McClure v. Fruehauf Corp.
...rims. The issues of contributory negligence and assumption of the risk were questions of fact for the jury. Turner v. Sinclair Refining Co., 254 S.C. 36, 173 S.E.2d 356 (1970); Rogers v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 222 S.C. 66, 71 S.E.2d 585 (1952). The motions for directed verdict and j.n.......
-
Adams v. Hunter
...Highway 17 from the Gate Service Station. Willfulness has been defined as a conscious failure to use due care. Turner v. Sinclair Refining Co. (1970), 254 S.C. 36, 173 S.E.2d 356. Causative violation of an applicable statute constitutes actionable negligence and is evidence of recklessness ......
-
Easler v. Hejaz Temple A.A.O.N.M.S. of Greenville
...296 S.E.2d 335 (1982); Canady v. Martschink Beer Distributors, Inc., 255 S.C. 119, 177 S.E.2d 475 (1970); Turner v. Sinclair Refining Company, 254 S.C. 36, 173 S.E.2d 356 (1970). The record contains sufficient evidence from which the jury could conclude that the danger which brought about h......
-
D. Defenses
...not bar recovery if the injury was not a foreseeable hazard of the injured person's negligence. See, e.g., Turner v. Sinclair Ref. Co., 254 S.C. 36, 173 S.E.2d 356 (1970); RESTATEMENT § 468.[862] See, e.g., infra notes 863-870 and accompanying text; RESTATEMENT §§ 464, 469-476, 478.[863] Se......
-
§ 22-1 Recklessness, Willfulness and Wantonness - Defined
...v. Martin, 262 S.C. 168, 203 S.E.2d 385 (1974); Powell v. Simons, 258 S.C. 242, 188 S.E.2d 386 (1972); Turner v. Sinclair Refining Co., 254 S.C. 36, 173 S.E.2d 356 (1970)("willfulness" is conscious failure to use due care); Yaun v. Baldridge, 243 S.C. 414, 134 S.E.2d 248 (1964); Jeffers v. ......