Court Opinion

ID: 9578963
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:50:03.937742+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:34:06.059743
License: Public Domain

Littlejohn, Justice:
This action was initiated by the appellant, Elijah Wiggins, Jr., as administrator of the estate of his eight-year-old son, Tyrone, pursuant to § 10-1951 et seq., Code of Laws of South Carolina (1962), referred to as the Wrongful Death Statute.
The complaint alleges that the death of Tyrone resulted from the negligent and reckless operation of a Plymouth automobile by the respondent, Dorothy Brown Thomas, in operating the vehicle at an excessive rate of speed, in failing to keep the vehicle under control, in failing to maintain a proper lookout, in failing to equip the vehicle with proper brakes or failing to apply the same if so equipped, in failing to slacken speed or deviate the course, and in failing to give any warning by horn.
The respondent interposed a general denial, and in addition alleged that the death was due to “the contributory negligence, recklessness and willfulness of plaintiff’s intestate in that plaintiff’s intestate darted out from behind a vehicle in the left lane of the southbound lane of Highway 52 and immediately ran into the side of the defendant’s automobile and thereby brought about the unavoidable accident on the part of this defendant and the defendant was faced with a sudden emergency and applied her brakes and acted as a reasonable and prudent person would have under the circumstances.”
The jury returned a verdict in favor of the respondent. The appellant submits that a new trial should be granted because (1) the judge refused to strike the “sudden emergency” allegation from the answer and charged the jury on that doctrine, and because (2) he allowed the verdict to stand although it was against the weight of the evidence.
It is the position of the respondent that the charge by the judge of the law of sudden emergency was proper, but *363even if improper was harmless error. It is further the position of the respondent that the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence, and that it is amply supported by the record.
In order to determine whether the appellant is entitled to a new trial because of either issue raised, we look at the facts, about which there is little dispute.
On Thursday, August 31, 1972, at about 6:20 p. m., the respondent was driving her Plymouth car in a southerly direction toward Charleston along U. S. Highway 52. She was carrying her husband to work. The highway was described as “heavily traveled.” It is a four-lane roadway, with two lanes southbound toward downtown Charleston and two lanes northbound. There is a fire, or bus, lane about ten feet wide immediately adjacent to the curb on each side of the highway. The entire roadway is estimated to be about 80 feet wide. A raised median, two feet wide, separates the northbound lanes from the southbound lanes. At the location of the accident, there is a break in the median such that motorists using the highway may turn to visit business enterprises. At the break in the median, the two southbound lanes widen into three lanes for a short distance to allow turning left safely without disturbing the flow of traffic in the two southbound lanes. There is no intersection.
Several cars, including that of the respondent, were proceeding in a southerly direction toward Charleston, using the outside lane, at a speed described by most witnesses as being about 20 miles an hour and by no witnesses as more than 30 to 35 miles an hour. It was raining lightly and the roadway was wet. The deceased, along with his brother Clifford, and boys named Tony and Julian, all about the same age, ran across the northbound lanes and stopped on the median. Tony ran across the three southbound lanes and apparently to safety. The deceased also left the median and attempted to cross the three southbound lanes.
*364Mr. Smalls was in the second car behind that of the respondent. He was called as a witness for the plaintiff-appellant and testified about the actions of the deceased as follows:
“Q. Now, you — can you tell me what called your attention to the children, other than the fact that you saw children on the highway? If anything?
“A. Well, what made me notice mostly was these three little boys; as far as I can remember there was three of them, I’m definite there was three, and the smallest one out of the group, it seemed as if he was getting set to run. He was swinging his arms and all of a sudden he just took off full speed.
“Q. About how long do you think they stood on the median ?
“A. Oh, they stood there I’ll say to give maybe two or three cars a chance to pass.
“Q. And this little child — do you know whether the brother was holding his hand or not?
“A. There wasn’t neither one holding the other’s hand.
“Q. And the whole time you saw him he was swinging his arms?
“A. Not the whole time. It just seemed like all of a sudden he got ready to run and the other two still stood there, but, he started to swinging like he was getting set and he just took a notion and left full speed.”
The deceased’s brother Clifford testified that he was holding Tyrone’s hand when he broke loose and ran. The deceased ran into the side of respondent’s Plymouth car apparently between the left front wheel and the left front door. He died from the injury sustained.
Respondent testified that there was a black car immediately preceding her in the adjoining lane of traffic, and therefore she did not see the children on the median. She *365stated that she did not see the deceased until her husband said “look out,” and at that time the boy hit her car. She applied her brakes, cut to the right, parked her car and came back immediately.
Appellant contends that it was error to charge the doctrine of sudden emergency. The objection is premised on the contention that there was no emergency to which respondent could have responded prior to the actual impact of the deceased with the Plymouth car. It is argued that since the respondent, by her own testimony, said that she did not see the child until her husband yelled “look out,” about which time the child hit the automobile, she could not have perceived an emergency. Appellant argues that since the doctrine of sudden emergency was charged, it is possible that the jury could have concluded that there was an emergency and could have erroneously applied the doctrine.
We think the contention is more technical than real. Sudden emergency, or imminent peril, is not a defense in and of itself. Such is merely a portion of the overall charge of the law of negligence and is charged to the jury in a proper case merely for the assistance of the jurors in applying the basic law of negligence. Here the law of sudden emergency was charged along with the law of negligence, recklessness, willfulness and wantonness, as well as contributory negligence.
Even if it be found that the charge was erroneous, we are of the opinion that the jury was not misled, and there are no reasonable grounds for supposing that the jury would have reached a different verdict. In Yaun v. Baldridge, 243 S. C. 414, 134 S. E. (2d) 248 (1964), we held that the appellant has the burden of showing that the charge could have prejudiced the case. This he has failed to do.
From a review of the facts hereinabove cited, it is apparent that the contention of the appellant that the judge should not have permitted the verdict to stand *366because it was against the weight of the evidence is without merit. The evidence is clearly susceptible of the inference that the sole cause of the collision between the deceased and the respondent’s car was the fact that the deceased left a place of safety and sprinted across a busy highway, causing the collision which the respondent had no reasonable opportunity to avoid.
Affirmed.
Moss, C. J., and Ness, J., concur.
Lewis and Bussey, JJ., dissent.