 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Stevens v. Allen8/7/2000
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS
Appeal From York County Joseph J. Watson, Circuit Court Judge
Heard June 6, 2000
AFFIRMED
We granted a writ of certiorari to review the Court of Appeals' opinion in Stevens v. Allen, 336 S.C. 439, 520 S.E.2d 625 (Ct. App. 1999). We affirm.
FACTS
Fifteen year old Kevin Marc Stevens was killed in a single car accident in the early morning hours of August 14,1993, when the car in which he was riding struck a bridge and rolled down an embankment into a creek. Stevens drowned as a result. Twenty year old Edgar Daniel Allen was allegedly the driver of the vehicle. The boys had been drinking and smoking marijuana prior to the accident. Stevens' parents, Colleen and Gerald Stevens, instituted these wrongful death and survival actions against Allen and his mother, Betty, the owner of the vehicle.
The jury, using special verdict forms, returned a verdict finding Stevens and Allen each 50% negligent, but awarded the Stevens "zero damages" in both the survival and wrongful death actions. The Stevens requested the trial court resubmit the matter to the jury, contending the verdicts were inconsistent; the trial court denied the motion. The court also denied their motions for a new trial nisa additur, and alternative motion for a new trial.
The Court of Appeals reversed. It held the jury's failure to award any damages was facially inconsistent with its assessment of liability. The Court held that, upon request, the trial court should have resubmitted the matter to the jury with instructions to either assess a definite dollar amount in damages for the plaintiff, or find in favor of the defendant.
ISSUE
Did the Court of Appeals err in finding the verdicts inconsistent?
DISCUSSION
In Johnson v. Phillips, 315 S.C. 407, 433 S.E.2d 895 (Ct. App. 1993), the Court of Appeals held a verdict finding the defendant liable but awarding zero damages was inconsistent or incomplete. This Court subsequently reversed Johnson to the extent it imposed a duty on the trial judge to reject such a verdict in the absence of an objection by either party. See Smith v. Phillips, 318 S.C. 453, 458 S.E.2d 427 (1995). However, we now hold that, when the issue is raised, a trial judge should resubmit a verdict assessing liability but awarding zero damages to the jury with instructions to either find for the defense or award some amount of damages.
There is a split of authority as to the appropriate response to a verdict finding in the plaintiff's favor, but awarding zero or no damages. Many jurisdictions hold that a verdict assessing liability but awarding zero damages is an invalid or inconsistent verdict upon which judgment may not be entered. See Annotation, Verdict for Money Judgment which finds for Party for Ambiguous or No Amount, 49 ALR2d 1328, nn. 2-6 (1956 & 1999 Supp.). See also Joseph Ashley Parr, Berry v. Risdall: When Can We Amend the Verdict?, 44 S.D.L.Rev. 147, n. 46 (hereinafter Parr). See also Archer v. Grozinger, 680 N.E.2d 886 (Ind. 1997)(jury's award of zero damages inconsistent with allocation of fault and is properly rejected by trial court).
Other jurisdictions either find no inconsistency and enter judgment for the plaintiff with no damages, or construe the verdict as being for the defendant. Parr at 171, n. 47; see also Annotation, 49 A.L.R.2d 1328, nn. 7-8. Cases upholding such verdicts generally do so either on the premise that the plaintiff has failed to prove the proximate cause of his damages, or that the jury, in essence, intended a defense verdict. See Riggs v. Szymanski, 233 N.W.2d 670
Page 1 2 3 South Carolina Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|