West v. Sowell, No. 17749
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina |
| Writing for the Court | MOSS |
| Citation | 118 S.E.2d 692,237 S.C. 641 |
| Parties | William T. WEST and Ruby R. West, Respondents, v. Hubert SOWELL and Walker Gainey, Appellants. |
| Decision Date | 27 February 1961 |
| Docket Number | No. 17749 |
Page 692
v.
Hubert SOWELL and Walker Gainey, Appellants.
[237 S.C. 642] D. Glenn Yarborough, Lancaster, Murchison, West & Marshall, Camden, for appellants.
Williams & Parler, James H. Howey, Lancaster, for respondents.
MOSS, Justice.
These two actions, arising out of the same automobile accident, were tried together by consent of the parties and resulted in verdicts for actual damages in favor of the respondents, who are husband and wife. The accident occurred at about 7:30 o'clock A.M. on October 10, 1958, on Highway No. 903, about one and one-half miles
Page 693
west of Flat Creek School in Lancaster County, South Carolina, when [237 S.C. 643] a Ford automobile owned by the respondent, William T. West, and driven by the respondent, Ruby R. West, collided with the rear of a Ford truck owned by Hubert Sowell, and operated at the time and place by Walker Gainey, an agent and servant of Sowell. William T. West brought his action against Hubert Sowell and Walker Gainey, appellants, to recover damages to his automobile. The action of Ruby R. West was to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by her.Timely motions for a nonsuit and a directed verdict were made on three grounds: (1) That there was no evidence of actionable negligence on the part of the appellants; (2) That if there was negligence on the part of the appellants, such was not the proximate cause of the injury and damage to the respondents; and (3) That the respondents were guilty of contributory negligence. These motions were refused. After the rendition of the verdict, the appellants moved for judgment non obstante veredicto, or, failing in that, for a new trial upon the same grounds as above stated. The motion was refused and this appeal followed. The question for determination by this Court is whether the trial Judge erred in refusing the motions of the appellants.
The question of whether or not there was error in refusing the motions of the appellants for a nonsuit, directed verdict, judgment non obstante veredicto, and, alternatively for a new trial, requires us to consider the testimony and the reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom in a light favorable to the respondents. If more than one reasonable inference can be drawn from the evidence, the case must be submitted to the jury. However, if the evidence is susceptible of only one reasonable inference, the question is no longer one for the jury but one of law for the Court. Ordinarily, contributory negligence is an issue for the jury and it rarely becomes a question of law for the Court. We have also held that if the only reasonable inference to be drawn from all the testimony is that the negligence [237 S.C. 644] of the complainant is a direct and proximate cause of his injury and damage, or that such negligence contributed as a direct and proximate cause, then it would be the duty of the trial Judge to order a nonsuit or direct a verdict against the plaintiff. We have also held that if the inferences properly deducible from controverted evidence are doubtful, or tend to show both parties guilty of negligence, and if there may be a fair difference of opinion as to whose act proximately caused the injury complained of, then the question must be submitted to the jury. Green v. Bolen, 237 S.C. 1, 115 S.E.2d 667.
The complaints in these actions charge that a Ford truck owned by the appellant Hubert Sowell and operated by Walker Gainey was being driven west on Highway 903, just ahead of the automobile owned by William T. West and operated by Ruby R. West. It is further alleged that when the driver of the said truck reached an intersecting road, that he negligently attempted to make a right turn off of Highway 903, and in so doing, drove to the left of the center line of said highway as if to make a left turn and then suddenly cut back and made a right turn...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cooper by Cooper v. County of Florence, No. 23540
...has been violated is ordinarily a question of fact for the jury. Jarvis v. Green, 257 S.C. 558, 186 S.E.2d 765 (1972); West v. Sowell, 237 S.C. 641, 118 S.E.2d 692 (1961). Similarly, the question of recklessness, willfulness, or wantonness is ordinarily a question for the jury. Dawson v. So......
-
Simmons v. Fenters, Civ. A. No. 7519.
...violation of Sections 46-405 and 46-406, supra, constituted negligence per se or negligence as a matter of law. West v. Sowell, 237 S.C. 641, 118 S.E.2d 692; Field v. Gregory, 230 S.C. 39, 94 S.E.2d 15; Chapman v. Associated Transport, Inc., 218 S.C. 554, 63 S.E.2d 5. Defendant's negligence......
-
Universal C. I. T. Credit Corp. v. Platt, No. 17829
...368, 79 S.E.2d 369; Green v. Page 354 Bolen, 237 S.C. 1, 115 S.E.2d 667; Fuller v. Bailey, 237 S.C. 573, 118 S.E.2d 340; West v. Sowell, 237 S.C. 641, 118 S.E.2d 692; the court must decide what that inference is as a matter of law, Howell[239 S.C. 108] v. Atlantic Coast Line R. R. Co., 99 S......
-
Davenport v. United States, Civ. A. No. 4521.
...by his failure to do so. Holcombe v. W. N. Watson Supply Co., Inc., 171 S.C. 110, 171 S.E. 604 (1933). As was held in West v. Sowell, 237 S.C. 641, 118 S.E.2d 692 (1961), "* * * the driver of the truck violated Section 46-388 by approaching the intersection of two highways on the left of th......
-
Cooper by Cooper v. County of Florence, No. 23540
...has been violated is ordinarily a question of fact for the jury. Jarvis v. Green, 257 S.C. 558, 186 S.E.2d 765 (1972); West v. Sowell, 237 S.C. 641, 118 S.E.2d 692 (1961). Similarly, the question of recklessness, willfulness, or wantonness is ordinarily a question for the jury. Dawson v. So......
-
Simmons v. Fenters, Civ. A. No. 7519.
...violation of Sections 46-405 and 46-406, supra, constituted negligence per se or negligence as a matter of law. West v. Sowell, 237 S.C. 641, 118 S.E.2d 692; Field v. Gregory, 230 S.C. 39, 94 S.E.2d 15; Chapman v. Associated Transport, Inc., 218 S.C. 554, 63 S.E.2d 5. Defendant's negligence......
-
Universal C. I. T. Credit Corp. v. Platt, No. 17829
...368, 79 S.E.2d 369; Green v. Page 354 Bolen, 237 S.C. 1, 115 S.E.2d 667; Fuller v. Bailey, 237 S.C. 573, 118 S.E.2d 340; West v. Sowell, 237 S.C. 641, 118 S.E.2d 692; the court must decide what that inference is as a matter of law, Howell[239 S.C. 108] v. Atlantic Coast Line R. R. Co., 99 S......
-
Davenport v. United States, Civ. A. No. 4521.
...by his failure to do so. Holcombe v. W. N. Watson Supply Co., Inc., 171 S.C. 110, 171 S.E. 604 (1933). As was held in West v. Sowell, 237 S.C. 641, 118 S.E.2d 692 (1961), "* * * the driver of the truck violated Section 46-388 by approaching the intersection of two highways on the left of th......