Montgomery v. National Convoy & Trucking Co.

Supreme Court of South Carolina · Torts

TortsNegligenceProximate CauseAct of GodContributory Negligenceblocked highwayduty to warneffective warning

Facts

On a cold day with rain, sleet, and icy patches, the defendants' trucks stalled near the crest and curve of a hill and together blocked the highway for southbound traffic for about fifteen minutes. There was evidence that lights or flares were present at the trucks, but no warning was placed at the crest of the hill and curve, which was the only place where a warning would have been effective. The plaintiff's chauffeur, driving slowly at no more than twenty miles per hour, first saw the blocked highway only when the car came around the curve and the headlights focused on the trucks about fifty-one feet away. He applied the brakes and shifted into reverse, but because of the icy downhill grade the car slid into one of the trucks and injured the plaintiff.

Issue

Whether the evidence required judgment for the defendants as a matter of law because there was no actionable negligence, the icy highway constituted an act of God or unavoidable accident, or the plaintiff was contributorily negligent. Also, whether the trial court erred in charging that the act of God defense required proof that the act of God was the sole cause and that defendants were free from contributing negligence.

Rule

A person who blocks a highway, even accidentally, must exercise ordinary care to warn approaching travelers, and the warning must be given at a place where it will be effective. Negligence may consist of omission as well as commission, and if there is any evidence tending to prove a pleaded specification of negligence, nonsuit is improper. The act of God defense applies only when the act of God is the sole proximate cause of the injury, which requires the defendant to show that his own negligence did not contribute as a proximate cause.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

At dusk outside Asheville, North Carolina, a delivery rig owned by Blue Summit Hauling jackknifed on freezing rain and blocked both southbound lanes just beyond a blind curve. The driver left reflective triangles beside the trailer but did not send anyone to the top of the curve, even though approaching motorists could not see the obstruction until they were too close to stop on the icy downgrade.

If an approaching driver slides into the rig, which is the strongest basis for finding Blue Summit negligent?

Explanation. When a defendant blocks a highway, even accidentally, it must use ordinary care to warn approaching travelers, and the warning must be placed where it will be effective. Warning only at the obstruction is insufficient if drivers cannot see it in time to avoid harm. Liability here rests on omission to give effective warning, not on strict liability or intentional misconduct. (Derived from Montgomery v. National Convoy & Trucking Co. (n.d.).)