437 S.E.2d 554 | S.C. Ct. App. | 1993
This is an action in negligence. Miehielle Hunley sued John Gibson for injuries she sustained when the vehicle in which she was a passenger was struck by an automobile driven by Gibson. The circuit court granted a directed verdict in favor of Gibson. Hunley appeals. We reverse and remand.
The dispositive facts are uncontroverted. Hunley was a passenger in an automobile driven by her mother. The automobile was stopped in the far left lane of Leesburg Road in
Gibson moved for a directed verdict, arguing there was no evidence of any actionable negligence on his part. Gibson argues the evidence shows he gave a proper signal and had enough room to change lanes, but that when he tried to change lanes, the van sped up and struck him.
In ruling on a motion for a directed verdict, the court must view the evidence and all inferences to be drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Johnson v. Phillips, — S.C. —, —, 433 S.E. (2d) 895 (Ct. App. 1993). If the evidence is susceptible of more than one reasonable inference, the court may not grant a directed verdict. Id.
Viewed in the light most favorable to Hunley, the evidence supports a reasonable inference that Gibson could have and should have stopped instead of attempting to change lanes. See S.C. Code § 56-5-2150 (1991) (no person shall move right or left on roadway unless such movement can be made with safety); Seitz v. Hammond, 265 F. Supp. 162 (D.S.C. 1967) (common law rules of the road require operator of vehicle to have it under proper control so as to be able to stop in order to avoid colliding with other vehicles on highway). Thus, the trial court erred in granting a directed verdict for Gibson. The judgment is reversed and the case is remanded for trial.
Reversed and remanded.