G & P Trucking v. Parks Auto Sales Service & Salvage12/8/2003
Heard November 4, 2003
REVERSED
In this action for contribution arising from a prior negligence claim, the trial court awarded damages to G&P;Trucking against Parks Auto Sales, Service, & Salvage, Inc., in the amount of Parks Auto's pro rata share of the common liability. Parks Auto appeals. We reverse.
FACTS
On January 12, 1999, Donald Finkey, a G&P;employee, while operating a tractor-trailer at the salvage yard of Parks Auto, struck a guy wire connected to a radio communications tower and caused the tower to fall.
After the accident, G&P;entered into settlements with four separate entities in connection with the collapse of the tower. Payments by G&P;pursuant to the settlements were as follows: (1) to Radio Communications of Charleston (RCC), the owner of the tower, G&P;paid drafts totaling $200,000.00 on January 12, 1999, and March 29, 1999; (2) to The Hartford, which insured RCC and had a right to subrogation for payments made directly to RCC, G&P;paid $72,295.13 on September 1, 1999; (3) to Wicks Broadcasting, which had equipment destroyed in the accident, G&P;paid $94,181.17 on February 15, 2000; and (4) to Parks Auto itself, G&P;paid $36,000.00 on November 10, 2000. The total amount paid by G&P;was $402,476.30.
The record on appeal indicates that, in connection with the four settlements, G&P;obtained signed releases from only RCC and Parks Auto. The release from RCC states in pertinent part that, in consideration of the sum paid by G&P; RCC "remise , release and forever discharge the said Zurich Insurance[G&P;s insurer], G&P;Trucking Company and Donald Finkey, their agents, servants, employees, executors, adjusters, insurance companies, subsidiaries, affiliated companies, administrators, successors, employees, and assigns." The release executed by Parks Auto, after acknowledging G&P; Zurich, and Finkey as "Payers," states that Parks Auto "and its heirs, executors, administrators, and assigns, release and forever discharge said Payers, their executives, administrators, assigns, and all other persons, firms, and corporations, both known and unknown."
Before all the agreed-upon amounts were paid in full, G&P;brought this claim against Parks Auto for contribution under the South Carolina Contribution Among Tortfeasors Act (the Act). In its complaint, dated January 31, 2000, G&P;alleged Parks Auto was negligent in failing to warn of the guy wire and in maintaining its premises in an unreasonable condition. Parks Auto's answer, dated March 22, 2000, denied any and all claims asserted by G&P; As of January 12, 2002, when the statute of limitations had run on any claim arising from the underlying accident, the case was still pending and no hearing had taken place.
A hearing on the matter took place February 5 and 6, 2002. The trial court, with the consent of counsel for both sides, bifurcated the trial, allowing the jury to determine whether or not Parks Auto was negligent, but reserving to itself the determination of whether Parks Auto would be liable for contribution under the Act in the event the jury found negligence.
The jury found Parks Auto negligently and proximately caused damage or injury to G&P; Parks Auto immediately moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or, in the alternative, a new trial on several grounds, namely, that (1) Parks Auto's liability was not extinguished by the settlements, (2) Parks Auto had no duty to warn of an open and obvious condition, and (3) Finkey's intervening negligence was the sole proximate cause of the accident. The trial court denied the motion and directed counsel to
Page 1 2 3 South Carolina Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|