 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Pike v. South Carolina Department of Transportation11/6/2000
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS
Appeal From Spartanburg County Gary E. Clary, Circuit Court Judge
Heard October 4, 2000
AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED
This is a wrongful death action. Respondent's wife, Melissa Pike (Melissa), was involved in a car accident at an intersection in Spartanburg; she died from injuries sustained in the collision. The jury found petitioner, the Department of Transportation (DOT), liable in the amount of $730,000. The DOT appealed, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. Pike v. South Carolina Dep't of Transp., 332 S.C. 605, 506 S.E.2d 516 (Ct. App. 1998). We granted the petition for a writ of certiorari to review the Court of Appeals' decision. We affirm as modified.
FACTS
The accident occurred on June 24, 1992, when Melissa attempted to turn left from Park Road onto United States Highway 176. A car traveling south on Highway 176 collided with Melissa's car. She died the next day. Respondent alleged that the DOT was negligent in failing to move a directional sign, reading "CHAPMAN HIGH SCHOOL," because the sign obstructed motorists' view of oncoming traffic from Highway 176 when they were stopped at the stop sign on Park Road. Respondent also claimed that the DOT negligently maintained the intersection by not installing a traffic signal. The DOT asserted discretionary immunity under the South Carolina Tort Claims Act as a defense.
The trial court denied the DOT's motions for directed verdict. The jury found in favor of respondent and awarded $730,000. In addition to moving for JNOV, or in the alternative, a new trial, the DOT also moved to reduce the verdict to $250,000, the statutory cap under the Tort Claims Act. The trial court denied the DOT's post-trial motions.
ISSUES
1. What is the burden of proof for the affirmative defense of discretionary immunity?
2. Did the trial court err in admitting evidence of prior accidents at the intersection and letters to the DOT regarding the intersection?
3. Does the statutory cap on damages under the South Carolina Tort Claims Act apply to this case?
1. BURDEN OF PROOF ON DISCRETIONARY IMMUNITY
The DOT argues that it only needs to produce "some evidence" in order to gain immunity under the South Carolina Tort Claims Act. See S.C. Code Ann. ยง 15-78-60(5) & (15) (Supp. 1999). We disagree.
At trial, Respondent presented evidence that the DOT had notice of problems at this intersection based on letters received by the department and accidents occurring at the intersection. Specifically regarding the Chapman High School sign, the DOT received a letter in November 1990 from James Everhart. The letter had a sketch of the intersection and stated that:
The newly erected Chapman High School sign and the tree limbs over the sidewalk a little farther up toward Asheville make it difficult for one to see the traffic coming from toward Asheville. Therefore crossing this intersection is a little dangerous.
Removal of sign, trimming limbs and installing a traffic light might be the answer to this dangerous situation.
Gary Thompson, a DOT district engineer, testified that in response to the Everhart letter, the department sent Rodney Wilson to evaluate the intersection; Wilson was a "civil engineer associate," but he did not have a technical degree of any kind. According to Thompson, Wilson was qualified to gather data upon which sight distances could be calculated, but he was not qualified to actually calculate sight distance. Wilson stated that in November 1990 he estimated the available sight distance at the intersecti
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 South Carolina Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|