Nettles v. Your Ice Co.
1939 S.C. LEXIS 101, 191 S.C. 429, 4 S.E.2d 797 (1939)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A plaintiff who has knowledge and appreciation of a danger, and voluntarily chooses to remain exposed to that danger despite having opportunities to avoid it, is guilty of contributory willfulness as a matter of law and is barred from recovering damages for their injuries.
Facts:
- James R. Nettles was an employee of Your Ice Company.
- On October 4, 1935, after his shift ended, Nettles joined another employee, Homer P. Whatley, to assist with an ice delivery.
- Shortly after meeting, Whatley bought a pint of whiskey with money contributed by Nettles, and both men took a drink.
- Nettles accompanied Whatley as he made a delivery and then traveled to two separate roadhouses, a significant deviation from Whatley's work duties, observing Whatley become progressively more intoxicated.
- Nettles had multiple opportunities to exit the truck and ensure his own safety at the ice plant, a delivery substation, and the two roadhouses.
- Despite recognizing the danger and attempting to persuade Whatley to let him drive, Nettles ultimately remained in the truck.
- While driving back from the second roadhouse, the intoxicated Whatley drove the truck erratically, ran it into a ditch, and caused an accident that severed Nettles's right arm.
- Your Ice Company management knew Whatley had a habit of drinking to excess and had previously discharged him for being drunk on duty before re-hiring him as a truck driver.
Procedural Posture:
- James R. Nettles (Plaintiff) sued Your Ice Company and its manager (Defendants) in the Court of Common Pleas for Charleston County, a state trial court.
- At trial, the defendants' motion for a non-suit was overruled.
- The jury returned a verdict for Nettles, awarding $15,000 in actual damages and $5,000 in punitive damages.
- After the verdict, the trial court judge denied the defendants' motions for a directed verdict and for a new trial.
- The defendants (now Appellants) appealed the trial court's judgment to the state's highest court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a plaintiff who voluntarily rides with a driver he knows is becoming progressively intoxicated, and who fails to leave the vehicle despite multiple opportunities to do so, contributorily willful as a matter of law, thereby barring his recovery for injuries sustained in a subsequent crash?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. G. B. Greene
Yes. A plaintiff is guilty of contributory willfulness as a matter of law, barring recovery, when he consciously fails to exercise due care for his own safety. Although the employer, Your Ice Company, was willful in entrusting a truck to a known drunkard, Nettles's own actions prevent him from recovering. Nettles knew Whatley was becoming 'progressively drunk' and fully appreciated the danger this posed. He had numerous clear opportunities to leave the truck at various stops but chose to remain and assume the risk of that danger. The court rejected the argument that Nettles was attempting a 'rescue,' finding it to be mere speculation unsupported by his actions, such as failing to alert his employer of the situation. Because Nettles consciously failed to exercise due care for his own safety, his contributory willfulness is a complete bar to recovery.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the defense of contributory willfulness in tort law, establishing that a plaintiff's own willful disregard for a known danger can completely bar recovery, even against a defendant who also acted willfully. The ruling emphasizes that a plaintiff has a duty to exercise care for their own safety and cannot recover for injuries resulting from a risk they knowingly and voluntarily assumed. This precedent makes it difficult for plaintiffs to succeed if they were aware of and had clear opportunities to escape a dangerous situation created by a defendant's willful conduct.
