 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
SULLIVAN v. DAVIS1/30/1995
These are negligence actions. While passing an eighteen wheeler on a two-lane road, Hazel Porter struck a utility truck which was attempting to turn left. Albert Sullivan was a passenger in Porter's car.
Albert brought an action for his injuries, and Dorothy, his wife, sued for loss of consortium. Defendants included Hazel Porter (the automobile driver), Cornel Davis (the utility truck driver), and Mid-Carolina Electric Cooperative (Davis' employer).
In Albert's case the jury returned a verdict for Albert for $20,000 against only Hazel Porter and found for Davis and Mid-Carolina. They found for all three defendants in Dorothy's consortium case.
After post-trial motions, the trial judge granted Albert a new trial nisi additur to $44,022.38. He denied all other post-trial motions.
The Sullivans and Hazel Porter appeal on various grounds. We affirm the jury's verdicts for Davis and Mid-Carolina. We reverse the verdict against Porter and remand for new trials for both Albert and Dorothy Sullivan.
I.
Sullivans' Alleged Errors Concerning Davis and Mid-Carolina
The Sullivans first argue they are entitled to new trials against Davis and Mid-Carolina because the trial judge erred in not allowing them to use recorded statements to impeach three witnesses.
Shortly after the accident, the insurance carrier for Mid-Carolina obtained statements from Cornel Davis, the driver of the utility truck; Raiford Kirkland, Davis' supervisor who witnessed the accident; and William Joyner, a motorist who also observed the accident. The statements, which were recorded over the telephone by Dwayne Singleton, a representative of the insurance carrier, were not signed. All three witnesses testified. The Sullivans argued they should have been allowed to impeach the witnesses by introducing transcripts of the statements into evidence.
We have reviewed the testimony and the recorded statements of the three witnesses and find no prejudice to the Sullivans. The Sullivans' attorney cross-examined all three witnesses. Davis had already testified consistently concerning the disputed matters. The Sullivans impeached Kirkland and Joyner with their depositions. Furthermore, Kirkland admitted
The trial court has sound discretion in deciding whether to admit or exclude evidence; the court's decision will not be disturbed on appeal absent clear showings of both abuse and prejudice. JKT Co. v. Hardwick, 274 S.C. 413, 265 S.E.2d 510 (1980); Blackwell v. Paccar, Inc., 302 S.C. 294, 395 S.E.2d 736 (Ct.App. 1990). Here, even if the court erred in excluding the statements for impeachment purposes, we see no prejudice.
II.
Sullivans' Alleged Errors Concerning Hazel Porter
The Sullivans next appeal the denial of their post-trial motions for new trial against Hazel Porter. The judge denied Albert and Dorothy's new trial absolute motions but granted Albert a new trial nisi additur to $44, 022.38. Porter consented to this amount.
Albert Sullivan
When the accident occurred, Albert Sullivan, who was almost seventy-eight years old, was retired. Prior to retirement he had worked in construction. Since retiring he did odd jobs and helped around the house. The accident caused internal injuries which in turn caused severe internal bleeding. In fact, Albert suffers from a 75 percent impairment of his whole body. Dr. Daniel Davis, a board-certified surgeon, characterized Albert's internal injuries as the worst he had ever seen from a person who survived an accident. He also indicated he thought Albert would die from these injuries. While hospitalized for nearly two months, Albert rece
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.
|
|