“The standard of care to be observed and exercised by the occupant is of course ordinary care under the circumstances. It cannot be said, however, that in every case and under all circumstances it is the duty of an occupant of a motor vehicle to use his senses in order to discover approaching vehicles or other dangers, or that his failure to do so would be negligence.”
How later courts described this case
- “The standard of care to be observed and exercised by the occupant is of course ordinary care under the circumstances. It cannot be said, however, that in every case and under all circumstances it is the duty of an occupant of a motor vehicle to use his senses in order to discover approaching vehicles or other dangers, or that his failure to do so would be negligence.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
*435
Me. Justice Baker
(concurring in result) : I concur in the result of the opinion written by Mr. Justice Fish-burne, as I do not consider this case comes within the doctrine of common enterprise as set forth by the writer hereof in
Lusk v. State Highway Department,
181 S. C., 101, 186 S. E., 786 .
As to actionable negligence being shown, I feel bound by the case of
Myers v. A. C. L. R. Co.,
172 S. C., 236, 173 S. E., 812 .