 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Stevens v. Allen6/28/1999
Stevens v. Allen
Appeal From York County
Joseph J. Watson, Circuit Court Judge
Submitted June 8, 1999
REVERSED AND REMANDED
These wrongful death and survival actions arise from a single car accident. Colleen Stevens and Gerald Stevens as Personal Representatives of the Estate of Kevin Marc Stevens (the Personal Representatives) brought the claim against Edgar Daniel Allen, the alleged driver, and Betty D. Allen, the car's owner, after Stevens was killed in the accident. The jury found Stevens and Allen both 50% responsible for Stevens' death and awarded zero damages. The Personal Representatives claimed this award was inconsistent and inadequate, and requested the trial Judge (1) instruct the jury to continue deliberations and return with an award of damages; (2) grant a new trial absolute; or (3) grant a new trial nisi additur. The trial Judge refused. The Personal Representatives made post-trial motions for a new trial as to damages, a new trial nisi additur, and judgment notwithstanding the verdict. The trial Judge denied all motions. The Personal Representatives appeal. We reverse and remand for a new trial.
FACTS/PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Stevens and Allen were involved in a single car accident in the early morning of August 14, 1993. The teenagers had been out partying. A party attendee testified Allen had been drinking and smoking marijuana. Stevens and Allen left the party in Betty Allen's car. The car struck a bridge sign and the bridge before falling down the embankment into a creek. Stevens was killed, and Allen survived with injuries. According to one of the county pathologists, Stevens died from drowning.
The Personal Representatives filed an amended complaint on March 13, 1995, seeking damages for wrongful death and pain and suffering due to Allen's negligence. Liability was contested at trial. Allen denied (1) he was driving the car at the time of the accident and (2) the Personal Representatives suffered damages to the extent claimed. He averred Stevens' conduct was contributorily negligent.
At trial, the Personal Representatives attempted to offer medical records pursuant to Rule 803(6), SCRE, the Business Records Exception. The records consisted of the urinalysis performed on a sample from Allen collected after the crash. The Judge refused to admit the evidence, finding a proper chain of custody could not be established and therefore it lacked sufficient trustworthiness.
As evidence of actual damages, the Personal Representatives offered funeral bills. They testified about the pain and suffering caused by the loss of their son. Allen introduced evidence that Stevens had been living with him for a period of time and there was a rift between Stevens and his family.
The jury concluded each party 50% liable on both the survival action and the wrongful death action. However, the jury found the Personal Representatives were entitled to "Zero Dollars" in damages on both actions. The Personal Representatives asked the court to instruct the jurors to return to deliberations and render a verdict with damages or to find for the defendant. The trial Judge accepted the verdict as presented. The Personal Representatives made post-trial motions for a new trial nisi additur or for a new trial absolute. After a Discussion about the amount of the additur requested, the trial Judge denied the motion. The Personal Representatives filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict as to damages, a motion for additur, and a motion for a new trial as to damages. The trial Judge denied all three motions.
ISSUES ON APPEAL
I. Did the trial Ju
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 South Carolina Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|