 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
MILLER v. DOE2/7/1994
rson who is not making a claim. In determining the meaning of a statute, the terms used therein must be taken in their ordinary and popular meaning, nothing to the contrary appearing. Citizens for Lee County v. Lee County, 308 S.C. 23, 416 S.E.2d 641 (1992). If a statute's language is plain and unambiguous and conveys a clear and definite meaning, there is no occasion for employing rules of statutory interpretation and the court has no right to look for or impose another meaning. Wynn v. Doe, 255 S.C. 509, 180 S.E.2d 95 (1971).
The plain language of the statute excludes only the owner or operator from being an attesting witness to an accident involving an unknown vehicle. The legislature amended § 38-77-170 (2) in 1987 to provide an alternative to physical contact by allowing a witness to confirm the accident. The statute was amended effective July 1, 1989, to add the requirement that the witness attest to the accident subject to criminal penalties for false statements. The legislature had the opportunity to further restrict the witness to independent and disinterested persons, but did not do so. Instead, the legislature chose to exclude as witnesses only the owner or operator of the insured vehicle.
CONCLUSION
The statute clearly states that the witness must be someone other than the owner or operator of the insured vehicle. Therefore, we find that the respondent is an appropriate witness. Accordingly, respondent has a right of recovery for uninsured motorist coverage benefits pursuant to § 38-77-170.
Affirmed.
CHANDLER, TOAL and MOORE, JJ., concur.
HARWELL, C.J., not participating.
Page 1 2 South Carolina Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|