Condemnation proceedings by the South Carolina Public Service Authority against the Spearwant Liquidating Company and a one-half undivided interest in 829 acres of land, more or less, in Berkeley County, S.C. and others. From an award by a board of referees, an appeal was taken to the Court of Common Pleas. On trial of the case de novo, a verdict was returned for defendants. The motion of the plaintiff for a new trial, or a new trial nisi, was overruled, and the plaintiff appeals. Messrs. R.M. Jefferies, Ben Hill Brown and James JulianBush for appellant, cite: Motion for new trial where verdictexcessive: 46 C.J., 174; 96 S.C. 267; 79 S.E., 406; 86 S.C. 528; 68 S.E., 645; 103 S.C. 102; 87 S.E., 639; 168 S.C. 459; 167 S.E., 665; 79 S.C. 429; 60 S.E., 948; 159 S.C. 191; 156 S.E., 357; 167 S.C. 217; 166 S.E., 129. Value of property: 167 S.C. 217; 166 S.E., 129; 60 S.Ct., 231; 295 U.S. 264; 122 F., 581; 293 F., 197. Burden of proof: 169 S.C. 41; 168 S.E., 143; 289 U.S. 502; 113 S.C. 372; 101 S.E., 830; 114 S.C. 323; 103 S.E., 528; 150 S.C. 398; 148 S.E., 220; 20 C.J., 92; 2 Fed. Supp., 870; 108 F.2d 95; 12 Rich., 634; 92 S.C. 219; 75 S.E., 459. Instructions to jury: 107 S.C. 115; 91 S.E., 976; 190 S.C. 103; 2 S.E.2d 395. Messrs. Stoney, Crosland Pritchard, Norval N. Newell and Marion F. Winter for respondents, cite: Excessiveverdicts: 156 S.C. 158; 153 S.E., 119; 145 S.C. 196; 143 S.E., 31; 152 S.C. 178; 149 S.E., 753; 169 S.C. 1; 167 S.E., 839; 161 S.C. 297; 159 S.E., 625; 186 S.C. 402; 197 S.E., 97; 122 S.C. 511; 115 S.E., 768; 168 S.C. 459; 167 S.E., 665; 76 S.C. 211; 56 S.E., 910; 103 S.C. 102; 87 S.E., 639; 96 S.C. 267; 79 S.E., 406; 74 S.C. 306; 54 S.E., 553; 14
Messrs. L.D. Jennings and Whiting Baker, for appellant, cite: Unsafe and defective appliances: 103 S.C. 114; 93 S.C. 395; 86 S.C. 137. Messrs. F.L. Wilcox and S.M. Wetmore, for respondent, cite: No evidence of negligence from failure of machineto work: 72 S.C. 398; 69 S.C. 529. And no presumptionof negligence from injury: 84 S.C. 392; 103 S.C. 102; 179 U.S. 658. October 2, 1923.
Hence, there was no error of law in denying the motions for a new trial on this ground, and these exceptions must be overruled. We close this division of the opinion with a quotation from Steele v. Atlantic Coast LineRailroad Company, 103 S.C. 102, 87 S.E. 639: "Under the Constitution and statutes, the discretion to control juries in respect to the amount of their verdicts in actions for damages is vested in the trial judges, who, it must be presumed, recognize and appreciate their responsibility, and exercise the discretion vested in them with fairness and impartiality.
Messrs. D.N. Rivers, of Ridgeland, and James HughMcFaddin, of Manning, for Appellant, cite: As to evidencebeing susceptible to reasonable inference of negligence onpart of respondent: 103 S.C. 102, 87 S.E. 639; 123 S.C. 199, 116 S.E. 97; 66 S.C. 302, 44 S.E. 943; 211 S.C. 40, 43 S.E.2d 619; 44 S.E.2d 537; 96 S.C. 425, 81 S.E. 10; 141 S.C. 453, 140 S.E. 105; 83 S.C. 325, 65 S.E. 278; 71 S.E.2d 385; 90 S.C. 25, 72 S.E. 558; 173 S.C. 58, 174 S.E. 754; 123 S.C. 199, 116 S.E. 97; 221 S.C. 497, 71 S.E.2d 407; 182 S.C. 294, 189 S.E. 224; 180 S.C. 470, 186 S.E. 389; 123 S.C. 199, 116 S.E. 97; 149 S.C. 284, 147 S.E. 327; 130 S.C. 458, 126 S.E. 627; 113 S.C. 137, 101 S.E. 643; 95 S.C. 138, 78 S.E. 798; 89 S.C. 387. John G. Dinkins, Esq., of Manning, for Respondent, cites: As to there being no evidence of negligence on part of respondentto support allegations in complaint: 211 S.C. 232, 44 S.E.2d 537; 211 S.C. 40, 43 S.E.2d 619; 221 S.C. 497, 71 S.E.2d 407; 157 S.C. 359, 154 S.E. 645; 126 S.C. 231, 119 S.E. 249; 141 S.C. 355, 139 S.E. 778; 154 S.C. 113, 151 S.E. 229; 160 S.C. 541, 159 S.E. 390; 195 S.C. 417, 11 S.E.2d 857; 160 S.C. 541, 159 S.E. 390, 391; 193 S.C. 309, 8 S.E.2d 321; 190 S.C. 181, 2 S.
Messrs. Wyche, Burgess Wyche, of Greenville, for Appellants, cite: As to distinction between actions brought underFederal Employers Liability Act and the Safety ApplianceAct: 338 U.S. 384, 70 S.Ct. 200, 94 L.Ed. 187. Asto there being absolutely no evidence of violation of theSafety Appliance Act by the defendant, the coupling beinga standard automatic one: 170 S.C. 15; 220 U.S. 580, 31 S.Ct. 617; 102 S.C. 276; 103 S.C. 102; 238 U.S. 243, 35 S.Ct. 785. As to there being no recovery for aggravationof a pre-existing condition where plaintiff fails to plead suchaggravation: 111 F.2d 269; 172 A. 687 (Penn.); 103 S.W.2d 523 (Mo.); 75 Or. 200, 146 P. 819; 142 S.W. 900 (Tex.).
ondent having legalcapacity to maintain the instant action: 51 S.C. 164, 28 S.E. 312; 21 S.C. 27; 8 S.C. 110; 25 S.C. 309; 65 S.C. 105, 43 S.E. 395; 134 S.E. 859, 137 S.E. 11; 7 Johns Ch. (N.Y.) 49; 91 Fed. 845, 34 C.C.A. 103; 75 S.E. 750, 114 Va. 13; 2 Hill Eq. 22; 183 S.E. 306, 178 S.C. 490; 103 A.L.R. 437; 38 S.E. 634, 60 S.C. 401, 54 A.L.R. 660; 155 S.E. 740, 158 S.C. 446, 73 A.L.R. 582; 27 S.E.2d 803, 203 S.C. 456; 67 S.E. 135, 85 S.C. 140; 66 S.E. 1049, 84 S.C. 552, 26 L.R.A. (N.S.) 781; 5 S.E. 718, 25 S.C. 281; 21 Am. Jur., Sec. 126 (p. 449), 128 (p. 450), 129 (p. 450), 131 (p. 451). As to the verdict not being so excessive and so clearlyagainst the preponderance of the evidence as to constitutean abuse of discretion on the part of the trial judge in refusingto grant a new trial, or in refusing to grant a newtrial nisi: 145 S.C. 196, 143 S.E. 31, 59; 124 S.C. 458, 117 S.E. 735, 740; 122 S.C. 511, 115 S.E. 768, 769; 168 S.C. 459, 167 S.E. 665, 667; 76 S.C. 211, 56 S.E. 908, 910; 103 S.C. 102, 117, 87 S.E. 639, 644; 96 S.C. 267, 79 S.E. 406; 74 S.C. 306, 54 S.E. 553; 140 S.C. 123, 138 S.E. 675; 275 U.S. 556, 48 S.Ct. 115, 72 L.Ed. 424; 186 S.C. 402, 197 S.E. 97. As to the trial judgeproperly refusing appellants' motions for judgment nonobstante veredicto, or for a new trial in the alternative: 73 S.C. 268, 53 S.E. 424, 426; 36 S.C. 585, 15 S.E. 732; 54 S.C. 314, 32 S.E. 431, 442; 8 S.E.2d 366, 193 S.C. 220; 18 S.E.2d 212, 198 S.C. 403. Messrs. Dargan, Paulling James, of Darlington, JohnF. Wilmeth, of Hartsville, and Woods Woods, of Marion, for Appellants, in reply, cite: As to the duty on a traveler,upon approaching a railroad crossing of which he is aware,to use due care to observe the approach of trains at saidcrossing: 193 S.C. 220, 8 S.E.2d 366. As to respondent'slegal capacity to maintain instant action being put inissue by appellant's answer: 2 Brev. 398; 3 Brev. 11; 49 C.J. 846; 49 C.J. 847; 51 S.C. 164, 28 S.E. 312.
87 S.C. 174, 69 S.E. 151. As to an inference of negligencebeing destroyed by evidence explaining clearly the acton which the inference is sought to be drawn and showing duecare: 189 S.C. 176, 200 S.E. 765. As to the burden ofproof being on the plaintiff to establish case by an affirmativeshowing: 101 S.E. 830. Mr. J.D. Parler, of St. George, and Mr. Jas. Julien Bush, of Barnwell, for Respondent, cite: As to evidence being sufficientto sustain verdict: 195 S.C. 150, 10 S.E.2d 330. Asto pain and suffering being proper elements of damage: 15 Am. J. 481-483; 62 S.C. 325, 40 S.E. 665; 75 S.C. 102, 55 S.E. 125. As to decision of Trial Judge, in refusing motionfor new trial, not being disturbed by Appellate Courtunless his discretion is clearly abused: 29 S.E.2d 760, 204 S.C. 433. As to Appellate Court being without authority todisturb verdict when same is supported by proper evidenceand Trial Judge did not abuse his discretion: 168 S.C. 459, 167 S.E. 665, 667; 76 S.C. 211, 56 S.E. 908, 910; 103 S.C. 102, 117, 87 S.E. 639, 644. As to question of purportedprejudicial remarks by counsel not being properly beforeAppellate Court: 10 S.E.2d 322; 160 S.C. 111, 158 S.E. 151, 158; 191 S.C. 1, 3 S.E.2d 257. June 7, 1947.
598; 184 At., 445; 14 S.W., 794; 119 Va., 843, 89 S.E., 887; 13 P.2d 446; 36 A.2d 230; 195 S.C. 150, 10 S.E.2d 330. As to the Verdict Being Excessive: 166 S.C. 367, 164 S.E., 881; 177 S.C. 132, 180 S.E., 889; 187 S.C. 334, 197 S.E., 398; 192 S.C. 465, 7 S.E.2d 220. Mr. Randolph Murdaugh, of Hampton, S.C. Counsel for Respondent, cites: As to the Sufficiency of Evidence ofNegligence on the Part of the Defendant to Carry That Issueto the Jury: 44 Am. Jur., 681; 52 C.J., 213; 38 Fed., 698; 57 F.2d 1019; 14 F.2d 90; 203 N.C. 62, 164 S.E., 325, 203 N.C. 62; 147 S.E., 547; 114 S.C. 517, 104 S.E., 186; 90 S.C. 331, 73 S.E., 356; 61 S.C. 556, 39 S.E., 758. As to the Question of Contributory NegligenceBeing One of Fact for the Jury: 112 So., 148; 165 So., 527; 173 So., 474; 104 So., 487; 132 S.W.2d 806; 36 F.2d 227; 196 S.C. 259, 13 S.E.2d 137. As to the Verdict Not Being Excessive: 195 S.C. 173, 10 S.E.2d 322; 96 S.C. 267, 79 S.E., 406; 145 S.C. 196, 143 S.E., 31; 83 W. Va., 768, 99 S.E., 270; 103 S.C. 102, 87 S.E., 639; 186 S.C. 402, 197 S.E., 97; 51 N.E.2d 334; 59 Fed. Sup., 443. September 7, 1945.
Action for personal injuries and property damage by Mason Melton against the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company and C.L. Fowler, the Railroad's engineer. From a Judgment for Plaintiff, the Defendants appeal. Messrs. Dargan Paulling, of Darlington, S.C. Mr.John F. Wilmeth of Hartsville, S.C. and Messrs. Woods Woods of Marion, S.C. Counsel for Appellants, cite: As to Directed Verdicts: 52 C.J., 193-195; 47 A.L.R., 283 and note; 194 S.C. 494, 10 S.E.2d 17, 176 S.C. 260, 180 S.E., 55; 173 S.C. 1, 174 S.E., 581; Annotations in 98 A.L.R., 161 and 140 A.L.R., 527. As to"Negative Testimony": 120 S.C. 473, 113 S.E., 325; (Ga. Ct. of App.), 8 S.E.2d 566; (Miss), 177 So., 50. As to Contributory Negligence, Recklessness, Willfulnessand Wantonness: 195 S.C. 486, 12 S.E.2d 27; 179 S.C. 493, 184 S.E., 96; 94 S.C. 143, 77 S.E., 868; 193 S.C. 220, 8 S.E.2d 366. As to ExcessiveVerdicts: 96 S.C. 267, 79 S.E., 406; 103 S.C. 102, 87 S.E., 639; 185 S.C. 459, 194 S.E., 446; 75 S.C. 102, 55 S.E., 125; 151 S.C. 415, 149 S.E. 124. Messrs. Mozingo Watts, of Darlington, S.C. Counsel for Respondents, cite: As to Contributory Negligence ofTraveler Being Question for Jury: 145 S.C. 489, 143 S.E., 273; 186 S.C. 306, 195 S.E., 638; 196 S.C. 259, 13 S.E.2d 137; 194 S.C. 494, 10 S.E.2d 17; 196 S.C. 230, 13 S.E.2d 1, 133 A.L.R., 1144; Code of S.C. 1942, Sec. 8377; 169 S.C. 41, 168 S.E., 143, 77 L.Ed., 457, 287 U.S. 502; 141 S.C. 238, 139 S.E., 459; 121 S.C. 394, 114 S.E., 500; 192 S.C. 441, 7 S.E.2d 163, 166, 167, 169; 175 S.C. 94, 178 S.E., 541; 153 S.C. 339, 150 S.E., 769, 773; 186 S.C. 402, 197 S.E., 97; 197 S.C. 409, 15 S.E.2d 758; 106 S.C. 123, 90 S.E., 260; 117 S.C. 516, 109 S.E., 123; 131 S.C. 208, 126 S.E., 449; 183 S.C. 284, 190 S.E., 817; 196 S.C. 287, 13 S.E.2d 142. As to Negligence,Willfulness, Wantonness, Recklessness, and UnlawfulActs of Defendant Being Questions for Jury: 57 S.C. 205, 35 S.E., 513; 175 S.C.
C. 17; 114 S.E., 761; 76 S.C. 202; 56 S.E., 958; 10 L.R.A. (N.S.), 799; 121 A.S.R., 946; 192 S.C. 527; 7 S.E.2d 459; 177 S.C. 286; 181 S.E., 30. Contributorynegligence: 45 C.J., 1017; 42 C.J., 1171. Wantonness defined: 177 S.C. 286; 181 S.E., 30; 75 S.C. 116 55 S.E., 163. Proximate cause: 179 S.C. 264; 184 S.E., 569. Messrs. McLeod Shore and Shepard K. Nash for respondent, cite: Consideration of question on appeal not raisedin motion for new trial: 170 S.C. 403; 170 S.E., 459; 98 S.C. 121; 82 S.E., 273; 134 S.C. 191; 132 S.E., 173; 186 S.C. 394; 195 S.E., 649; 70 C.J., 948. As to propertime for objection to remarks of counsel: 178 S.C. 217; 182 S.E., 637; 160 S.C. 111; 158 S.E., 151 Liability forinjury to guest: 185 S.C. 449; 194 S.E., 335; 177 S.C. 286; 181 S.E., 30; 178 S.C. 431; 182 S.E., 750; 45 C. J., 1016. Charge: 76 S.C. 284; 56 S.E., 949; 83 S.C. 119; 65 S.E., 6; 22 S.C. 476; 54 S.C. 599; 32 S.E., 762; 100 S.C. 499; 85 S.E., 52; 178 S.C. 278; 182 S.E., 889. Excessive verdict: 103 S.C. 102; 87 S.E., 639. July 22, 1940.