Hudson v. A. C. L. Ry. Co.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Hudson v. A. C. L. Ry. Co.

116 S.E. 926, 123 S.C. 488, 1923 S.C. LEXIS 77

CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina

DecidedJanuary 5, 1923

Docket11088

StatusPublished

This text of 116 S.E. 926 (Hudson v. A. C. L. Ry. Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of South Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hudson v. A. C. L. Ry. Co., 116 S.E. 926, 123 S.C. 488, 1923 S.C. LEXIS 77 (S.C. 1923).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Watts.

Respondent obtained a judgment for $10,000 before Judge Bowman and a jury in the Court of Common Pleas for Richland County, in December, 1921, for the alleged wrongful death of plaintiff’s intestate, a flagman employed by defendant in interstate commerce. After entry of judgment, defendant appeals, and by two exceptions alleges error in not directing a verdict as asked for by the defendant at the trial in the Circuit Court. The exceptions are overruled. Counsel for appellant conceded in his argument before this Court that there was no presumption of negligence on the part of the deceased at the time of his death. His Honor committed no error in refusing to direct a verdict as asked for, but did right in submitting the case to the jury, under Thornton v. Railway Company, 98 S. C., 348; 82 S. E., 433. The facts and circumstances in this case are even stronger than in the Thornton Case, supra. Judgment affirmed.

Mr. Chief Justice Gary and Messrs. Justices Fraser, Cothran, and Marion concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Watts.

Respondent obtained a judgment for $10,000 before Judge Bowman and a jury in the Court of Common Pleas for Richland County, in December, 1921, for the alleged wrongful death of plaintiff’s intestate, a flagman employed by defendant in interstate commerce. After entry of judgment, defendant appeals, and by two exceptions alleges error in not directing a verdict as asked for by the defendant at the trial in the Circuit Court. The exceptions are overruled. Counsel for appellant conceded in his argument before this Court that there was no presumption of negligence on the part of the deceased at the time of his death. His Honor committed no error in refusing to direct a verdict as asked for, but did right in submitting the case to the jury, under Thornton v. Railway Company, 98 S. C., 348; 82 S. E., 433. The facts and circumstances in this case are even stronger than in the Thornton Case, supra. Judgment affirmed.

Mr. Chief Justice Gary and Messrs. Justices Fraser, Cothran, and Marion concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

116 S.E. 926, 123 S.C. 488, 1923 S.C. LEXIS 77, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hudson-v-a-c-l-ry-co-sc-1923.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack