 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
SULLIVAN v. DAVIS1/30/1995
of the verdict "not so shockingly disproportionate to the injuries Kalchthaler sustained as to indicate `passion, caprice, prejudice, or some other influence outside the evidence' motivated the jury's decision." Kalchthaler, Davis Adv. Sh. No. 24 at 39. In this case, however, the judge abused his discretion, amounting to an error of law, in not granting Sullivan's new trial absolute motion because the verdict here was "shockingly disproportionate."
Dorothy Sullivan
Dorothy Sullivan is in her seventies. She and Albert had been married for almost forty-four years at the time of trial. The first week after the accident she spent almost fourteen hours a day at the hospital. During the remainder of Albert's two-month hospitalization she averaged six to eight hours a day at the hospital. When Albert went to the nursing home, Dorothy spent the afternoons with him and she also attended his physical therapy treatments. Once Albert returned home, she assisted him in all daily activities
The jury gave Dorothy no compensation for loss of consortium. At common law, a spouse is entitled to recover the value of the injured spouse's services, society, and companionship in an action for loss of consortium. Gosnell v. Dorchester School Dist. No. 2, 301 S.C. 21, 389 S.E.2d 865 (1990). Dorothy's verdict was irreconcilably inconsistent with Albert's. Therefore, her new trial absolute motion should also have been granted. Cf. Craven v. Cunningham, 292 S.C. 441, 357 S.E.2d 23 (1987) (jury verdict of $6,100 actual damages for husband's
In conclusion, Albert and Dorothy Sullivan are both entitled to new trials against Hazel Porter. The Sullivans argue these trials should be on the issue of damages only. However, S.C. Code Ann. ยง 15-33-125 (Supp. 1993), requires that new trials include issues of both liability and damages unless the circuit court could have granted a directed verdict on the issue of liability. Here, because the evidence on liability was disputed, the judge could not have directed a verdict. Therefore, the new trials must include issues of liability and damages.
III.
Hazel Porter's Cross-Appeal
Hazel Porter has cross-appealed the trial court's denial of his motion for directed verdict on the ground Albert Sullivan's testimony absolved him from any liability.
Albert Sullivan testified he did not think Porter could have done anything to avoid the accident. However, he acknowledged he was not paying much attention. Furthermore, the inferences from the testimony of five other witnesses conflicted, making the issue of Porter's liability disputed.
In ruling on a motion for directed verdict, the trial judge is required to view the evidence and inferences which can reasonably be drawn from the evidence in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion. The
We conclude the court correctly denied Porter's directed verdict motion.
Conclusion
The trial court erred in denying Albert and Dorothy Sullivans' motions for new trials absolute against Hazel Porter. We order new trials, including issues of both liability and damages against Porter only. The remaining issues are affirmed.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
SHAW, and CURETON, JJ., concur.
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.
|
|