Umhoefer v. Bollinger
| Decision Date | 20 March 1989 |
| Docket Number | No. 1323,1323 |
| Court | South Carolina Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Debra UMHOEFER, Appellant, v. Mark W. BOLLINGER, Ralph Trowbridge and Leonard G. Umhoefer, Jr., Respondents. Leonard G. UMHOEFER, Jr., Appellant, v. Mark W. BOLLINGER, Respondent. . Heard |
Howell V. Bellamy, Jr., and Preston B. Haines, III, both of Bellamy, Rutenberg, Copeland, Epps, Gravely & Bowers, and John L. Sweeny, of Hudson & Sweeny, Myrtle Beach, for appellants.
D.W. Green, Jr., of Green & Sasser, Conway, for respondents.
This appeal involves two automobile accident cases which were consolidated for trial. Appellants, Debra Umhoefer and Leonard G. Umhoefer, Jr., appeal the denial of their motions for directed verdict and new trial following a jury verdict which found Leonard liable for the accident. We affirm.
Debra Umhoefer and Leonard Umhoefer are brother and sister. At the time of the accident, Leonard was driving his vehicle in a northerly direction on U.S. Highway 17 in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, near its intersection with 38th Avenue North. Debra was a passenger in the vehicle. Respondent Bollinger was driving a van in a southerly direction on the same highway. The accident occurred as Bollinger was turning left into 38th Avenue North and Leonard was proceeding straight ahead.
At trial the Umhoefers contended Bollinger "darted out" in front of their vehicle causing the accident. Conversely, Bollinger claimed he was properly in the intersection and Leonard ran a red light and hit him. The Umhoefers moved for directed verdicts of liability against Bollinger. The trial court denied the motions. The jury found Bollinger not liable to the Umhoefers. The Umhoefers each moved for a new trial on the same grounds as the directed verdict motions. Those motions were also denied.
On appeal the Umhoefers argue the trial judge should have granted their motions for directed verdict and new trial. They argue Bollinger was negligent, as a matter of law, in that he violated several provisions of the South Carolina Code and because all the evidence shows he was negligent. We disagree.
The dispositive issue in this appeal is whether there is any evidence from which the jury could have found that Bollinger was not negligent, or if negligent, his negligence was not the proximate cause of the accident.
In his answer, Bollinger charges Leonard with committing several acts of negligence and recklessness including speeding, running a red light, and failing to keep his vehicle under proper control. If the jury found these charges to be true it may have concluded Leonard's negligence, not Bollinger's negligence, was the proximate cause of the accident. We find there was some evidence from which the jury could have found Leonard's negligence was the proximate cause of the accident.
The Umhoefers concede there is "some evidence of excessive speed" on the part of Leonard. They, however, rely on the case of Horton v. Greyhound Corp., 241 S.C. 430, 128 S.E.2d 776 (1962), for the proposition that mere evidence of excessive speed does not present a jury question as to Leonard's negligence where the evidence shows Bollinger turned in front of their vehicle. They argue the only inference to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Vinson v. Hartley
...his findings are wholly unsupported by the evidence or the conclusions reached are controlled by error of law. Umhoefer v. Bollinger, 298 S.C. 221, 379 S.E.2d 296 (Ct.App.1989). See also Boozer v. Boozer, 300 S.C. 282, 387 S.E.2d 674 (Ct.App.1988) (Court of Appeals has no power to review tr......
-
Creighton v. Coligny Plaza Ltd.
...findings are wholly unsupported by the evidence or the conclusions reached are controlled by error of law. Umhoefer v. Bollinger, 298 S.C. 221, 379 S.E.2d 296 (Ct.App.1989). In deciding whether to assess error to a court's denial of a motion for a new trial, we must consider the testimony a......
-
Proctor v. Dept. of Health
...his findings are wholly unsupported by the evidence or the conclusions reached are controlled by error of law. Umhoefer v. Bollinger, 298 S.C. 221, 379 S.E.2d 296 (Ct.App.1989). See also Boozer v. Boozer, 300 S.C. 282, 387 S.E.2d 674 (Ct.App.1988) (Court of Appeals has no power to review tr......
-
Ralph v. McLaughlin
...to the nonmoving party." Vinson v. Hartley , 324 S.C. 389, 405, 477 S.E.2d 715, 723 (Ct. App. 1996) ; Umhoefer v. Bollinger , 298 S.C. 221, 224, 379 S.E.2d 296, 297 (Ct. App. 1989).New Trial Nisi Additur "The denial of a motion for a new trial nisi is within the [circuit court]'s discretion......