Carlisle Bean Hines, of Spartanburg, forAppellant, cite: As to Respondent not presenting any evidenceof negligence on the part of Appellant: 246 S.C. 261, 143 S.E.2d 521; 242 S.C. 221, 130 S.E.2d 486, 13 A.L.R. 3d 426; 244 S.C. 572, 137 S.E.2d 764; 247 S.C. 425, 147 S.E.2d 692. As to error on partof Trial Judge in failing to direct a verdict for Appellant: 243 S.C. 568, 135 S.E.2d 75; 243 S.C. 469, 134 S.E.2d 397; 246 S.C. 366, 143 S.E.2d 722; 228 S.C. 550, 91 S.E.2d 254. As to Trial Judge erring in failingto grant judgment non obstante veredicto in favor of Appellant: 246 S.C. 512, 144 S.E.2d 909; 243 S.C. 568, 135 S.E.2d 75; 243 S.C. 469, 134 S.E.2d 397; 246 S.C. 366, 143 S.E.2d 722.
Messrs. Moore, Mouzon McGee, of Charleston, forAppellants, cite: As to where the evidence is susceptible ofonly one reasonable inference, the question is no longer onefor the jury, but is one of law for the court: 244 S.E. 454, 137 S.E.2d 594. As to Plaintiff's intestate being guiltyof negligence as a matter of law, which was a contributoryproximate cause of his death: 243 S.C. 425, 134 S.E.2d 410; 244 S.C. 454, 137 S.E.2d 594; 181 S.C. 101, 186 S.E. 786; 228 S.C. 550, 91 S.E.2d 254; 243 S.C. 568, 135 S.E.2d 75; 7 Am. Jur.2d 946, Sec. 397; 243 S.C. 469, 134 S.E.2d 397; 7 Am. Jur.2d 917, Automobiles and Highway Traffic; 223 F.2d 839. As to Defendant driver not acting within the scopeand course of his employment at the time and place wherethe accident occurred: 121 S.C. 407, 114 S.E. 402; 235 S.C. 319, 111 S.E.2d 557; 200 S.C. 438, 21 S.E.2d 17; 193 S.C. 176, 7 S.E.2d 833; 108 S.C. 179, 93 S.E. 869; 315 F.2d 429; 136 S.E.2d 713. Messrs. J.D. Parler and Thomas O. Berry, Jr., of St. George, for Respondent, cite: As to there being ample evidencethat the driver of the automobile was in the courseof his employment at the time of the accident: 207 S.C. 339, 35 S.E.2d 425; 156 S.C. 1, 152 S.E. 753; 124 S.C. 342, 117 S.E. 531; 102 S.C. 146, 86 S.E. 202, L.R.A., 1916-B, 629.
Messrs. Smith Moore and Arthur M. Flowers, Jr., of Georgetown, for Appellants, cite: As to error on partof Trial Judge in failing to grant Appellants' timely motionsfor nonsuit and direction of verdict since the testimony clearlyshows that the Respondent was guilty of contributorynegligence and recklessness as a matter of law, whichnegligence and recklessness was the proximate cause ofhis injuries: 228 S.C. 550, 91 S.E.2d 254; 243 S.C. 568, 135 S.E.2d 75; 205 S.C. 327, 31 S.E.2d 904; 243 S.C. 469, 134 S.E.2d 397; 139 S.E.2d 195; 139 S.E.2d 247; 140 S.E.2d 402; 326 F.2d 907; 223 F.2d 839, cert. den., 76 S.Ct. 701, 351 U.S. 912. As to the requirement that an automobilemust be maintained for general family use before the familypurpose doctrine is applicable: 235 S.C. 314, 111 S.E.2d 550; 241 S.C. 474, 129 S.E.2d 131. Messrs. Patrick J. Doyle and Cecil W. Schneider, of Georgetown, for Respondent, cite: As to the driver of theautomobile being guilty of negligence, and such negligencewas the proximate cause of Respondent's injuries: 218 S.C. 430, 63 S.E.2d 161; 126 Conn. 345, 11 A.2d 354; 201 F.2d 88; 206 N.W. 923, 188 Wis. 560; 297 P.2d 434, 46 Cal.2d 474; Blashfield, Encyclopedia of Automobile Law and Practice, Sec. 1411; 61 C. J.S. 61, Sec. 469; 237 S.C. 398, 117 S.E.2d 591; 220 S.C. 26, 66 S.E.2d 322.