(DOWNLOAD) "Wall v. Parker" by South Carolina Supreme Court # Book PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: Wall v. Parker
- Author : South Carolina Supreme Court
- Release Date : January 28, 1953
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 48 KB
Description
January 28, 1953. On or about November 9, 1950, at approximately 6:30 in the evening, plaintiff-respondent, while driving a Ford pickup truck in an easterly direction on U.S. Highway 76 approximately three miles west of the city limits of Florence, S.C. was involved in a collision with one Ford automobile owned and operated by appellant, J.W. Parker, which at the time was entering U.S. Highway 76 from the north side, causing respondent, according to the complaint, to suffer personal injuries, expense and loss of time from work. The answer thereto set up a general denial, contributory negligence, recklessness and willfulness and by way of counterclaim asked judgment against respondent for repair bills and loss of use of appellant's car which were due to the sole negligence and recklessness of respondent. A general denial was entered as to the counterclaim and the cause tried before the Honorable R.W. Sharkey and a jury at the January, 1952, term of court, resulting in a verdict for plaintiff-respondent in the sum of $5,000.00. At the conclusion of the judge's charge to the jury, the trial judge inquired, ""Is there anything further from the Plaintiff?"" Having received a negative answer, he inquired, ""Anything further from the Defendant?"" to which appellant's counsel replied, ""We would like for you to charge Section 60 on page 486 of the Acts of 1949, 46 St. at Large, paragraphs (a) and (b); (b) relates to the speed limit and (a) relates to the due care used upon the highway."" This request was refused in the following language: ""I have covered the principles of due care. I have covered that, I have charged them fully on the necessity of exercising due care and told them that it was necessary, regardless of the statute"", and the refusal to charge this section of the statute is assigned as error by appellant.