Willard v. McCoy
| Decision Date | 14 April 1959 |
| Docket Number | No. 17524,17524 |
| Citation | 108 S.E.2d 113,234 S.C. 317 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | John B. WILLARD, as Administrator of the Estate of James William Willard, Respondent, v. Charlie McCOY and Charles McCoy, a Minor over the age of Fourteen Years, Appellants. |
Butler & Chapman, Spartanburg, Mike S. Jolly, Union, for appellants.
James W. Workman, James M. Arthur, Union, for respondent.
This is an action for damages for alleged wrongful death under the automobile guest statute, Sec. 46-801, Code of 1952. See Jackson v. Jackson, S.C., 108 S.E.2d 86, for quotation of it and citations of former relevant decisions; others may be found in the footnotes of the code and supplement.
The defendant, Charles McCoy, driving the automobile of his father and codefendant, Charlie McCoy with decedent as his guest passenger, undertook to race one Roberts in their respective automobiles on a public highway after midnight. All of the participants were young mill employees who got off work at midnight. There was verdict and judgment for plaintiff which has been appealed upon numerous grounds, including alleged error in the denial of motions for nonsuit, directed verdict and judgment non obstante veredicto.
Because of the necessity of new trial the evidence will not be discussed except to say that we find no error in the refusal of the state motions for the defendants. There was evidence which tended to show that the fatal accident occurred after the end of the race and when the defendant driver, who won the race, had reduced his speed with the intention of turning around on the highway. He testified that at a speed of 55 or 60 miles an hour he lost control of the car on a curve and ran into a field. The disastrous results of the ensuing upset of the car and other facts in evidence indicated reckless speed. See on the subject of racing on the highways 5A Am.Jur. 406, Sec. 289, and also our tangent cases of Nettles v. Your Ice Co., 191 S.C. 429, 4 S.E.2d 797, Augustine v. Christopoulo, 196 S.C. 381, 13 S.E.2d 918, and Baker v. Clark, 233 S.C. 20, 103 S.E.2d 395.
Passing over the other alleged errors in the admission of evidence and in the instructions to the jury, without decision of them because they may not be repeated at another trial, the judgment will have to be reversed because of prejudicial errors in the admission of the testimony of a former highway patrolman who investigated the accident some time after its occurrence. He was allowed, over objection, to testify to his conclusions which, for aught in the record, were highly speculative. For example, he said that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Doremus v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co.
...inadmissible under the holding of this court in Thompson v. S. C. State Highway Dept., 224 S.C. 338, 79 S.E.2d 160, and Willard v. McCoy, 234 S.C. 317, 108 S.E.2d 113. The factual situations involved in the cited cases are readily distinguishable from the case now under consideration. In ea......
-
Elek v. Boyce
...position on the extent to which a highway patrolman may be permitted to testify was clearly and concisely stated in Willard v. McCoy, 234 S.C. 317, 108 S.E.2d 113 (1959) wherein the court said "* * * We have heretofore remarked, in at least one opinion, that the testimony of highway patrolm......
-
Gulledge v. McLaughlin
...(holding it was error, although harmless, to allow patrolman to testify that van's wheel had been "knocked off"); Willard v. McCoy, 234 S.C. 317, 108 S.E.2d 113 (1959) (reversing judgment for plaintiff because patrolman who was not an eyewitness testified as to speed as well as how many tim......
-
Jackson v. Price
...cause of the accident. He may only testify regarding his direct observations unless he is qualified as an expert."); Willard v. McCoy, 234 S.C. 317, 108 S.E.2d 113 (1959) (judgment for plaintiff reversed because patrolman who was not an eyewitness testified regarding how many times a car ov......