West v. Sowell

Decision Date27 February 1961
Docket NumberNo. 17749,17749
Citation118 S.E.2d 692,237 S.C. 641
CourtSouth Carolina Supreme Court
PartiesWilliam T. WEST and Ruby R. West, Respondents, v. Hubert SOWELL and Walker Gainey, Appellants.

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 west of Flat Creek School in Lancaster County, South Carolina, when 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 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 in front of the automobile of the respondents. It was further charged that the driver of the truck failed to give a proper signal indicating that a right turn was to be made at the intersection. It is asserted that these acts of negligence of the appellants proximately caused the car driven by Ruby R. West to collide with the rear end of said truck, with resulting damage to the respondents.

The answer of the appellants contained a general denial and also alleged as a defense that the injury to the respondents was caused and occasioned by their contributory negligence in failing to have their automobile under proper control, and in following the appellants' truck too closely on the highway, and in failing to apply the brakes to avoid hitting the truck of the appellants.

It appears from the testimony that Ruby R. West was employed at Grace Bleachery of the Springs Cotton Mills, in Lancaster, South Carolina. On the morning of October 10, 1958, at about 7:30 A.M., Ruby R. West driving an automobile belonging to her husband William T. West, and accompanied by four of her fellow employees, was traveling over and along Highway 903 on the way to work. This car was being driven about three car lengths back of the truck of the appellants; both the car and truck were traveling west on Highway No. 903, and approaching an intersecting secondary road. It was the intention of the driver of the truck to turn right onto the said secondary road. The testimony in behalf of the respondents shows that when the truck approached the intersection, where the collision occurred, the driver first pulled four to six inches to the left of the center line of said highway, indicating to the driver of the automobile that the truck intended to turn left, and then, without any signal or warning by the driver of the truck, it suddenly turned to the right. Ruby R. West testified that in an effort to avoid striking the rear of the truck, that she attempted to drive to the left of said truck, but in so doing, collided with the left rear thereof. The driver of the truck testified that he did not drive to the left of the center...

To continue reading

Request your trial
16 cases
  • Cooper by Cooper v. County of Florence
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • April 16, 1991
    ...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
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of South Carolina
    • September 18, 1964
    ...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
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • August 28, 1961
    ...224 S.C. 368, 79 S.E.2d 369; Green v. 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 v. Atlantic Coast Line R. R. Co., 99 S.C. 417, 83 S.......
  • Davenport v. United States, Civ. A. No. 4521.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of South Carolina
    • May 18, 1965
    ...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......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT