 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Long v. Norris & Associates9/25/2000
Appeal From Richland County Larry R. Patterson, Circuit Court Judge
Heard September 11, 2000
AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED
Carolyn Long brought this action against Norris and Associates, Ltd. and Lou Norris, individually, alleging Lou Norris committed assault and battery when he repossessed her car. At trial, Defendant, Lou Norris, moved for a directed verdict. The Circuit Court granted his motion. The jury returned a verdict against Norris and Associates and awarded $9,931.90 to Long. Norris and Associates made a Rule 60(b), SCRCP motion to set aside the judgment. It sought this relief stating a juror failed to honestly respond to the court's voir dire. The Circuit Court agreed. Long appeals both the trial court's issuance of the directed verdict and the order setting aside the judgment. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.
FACTS/PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In the early morning hours of February 2, 1995, Carolyn Long was stirred from sleep by the blaring of her car alarm. For Long, this was not an unusual event -- a cat occasionally triggered the alarm when climbing on the vehicle in a quest for warmth from the engine's radiating heat. As she had done in the past, Long got up to go outside and turn off the alarm. In this circumstance, however, instead of finding the feline, Long encountered a man unknown to her who was taking her automobile. According to Long, the stranger pushed her to the ground and drove her car away.
Long reported the incident to the police that night. The police, in turn, informed Long the car had been repossessed.
Long filed an action against Norris and Associates and Lou Norris, individually, for assault and battery arising out of Lou Norris's repossession of her automobile. Long sought both actual and punitive damages for the physical and emotional damages she claimed to have suffered because of Defendants' actions.
Lou Norris moved at the close of evidence that he "be dropped or dismissed from case as a defendant" because "at all times he was acting within his authority as an employed agent of Norris and Associates" and that Long presented "no evidence à [Lou Norris] acted outside of his capacity as an agent of [the business]." Over Long's objection, the judge granted the motion.
The case went to the jury against Norris and Associates. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Long for $2,931.90 actual damages and $7,000 punitive damages.
The Circuit Court entered the judgment on May 12, 1998. On June 1, 1998, Norris and Associates moved for relief pursuant to Rule 60(b), SCRCP.
Norris and Associates alleged, despite the Circuit Court's specific voir dire relating to the jury pool's experience with automobile repossession, it had confirmed juror Preston Anderson failed to reveal his vehicle was repossessed in 1996. It submitted Anderson's credit report, which detailed the repossession, as support for its allegation. Norris and Associates investigated Anderson because he seemed to manifest a preference for Long during the trial.
Norris and Associates supplemented its post-trial motion by filing an affidavit of Wayne Alston, manager of Fidelity Financial Services. Fidelity financed the automobile purportedly repossessed from Anderson. Alston averred, inter alia, that:
Anderson once financed a car through Fidelity;
Anderson failed to make payments on the car;
Fidelity furnished Anderson with notice of right to cure before pursuing repossession, yet Anderson did not take steps to rectify the situation; and
Fidelity repossessed the car on June 24
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 South Carolina Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|