SCOTT v. FRUEHAUF CORPORATION
8/6/1990
s the liability of the seller of a
Next, Fruehauf argues the trial judge erred in denying
its motions for directed verdict or j.n.o.v. on the issue
of negligence. First, Fruehauf contends Scott Failed to
establish it owed him a duty of care because it did not design
or manufacture the defective wheel assembly and was merely
a seller. Fruehauf's cites Thrash v. U-Drive-It Co., 158 Ohio St. 465,
110 N.E.2d 419 (1953). In that case, the defendant
sold a defective used truck to a car dealer who sold it to the
injured party. The Ohio Supreme Court held the defendant
had no duty of care to the injured party because the parties
lacked privity. In South Carolina, however, the supplier of a
Fruehauf also contends Scott failed to establish it breached its duty of care. Scott alleged Fruehauf failed to properly inspect the wheel assembly when, as a dealer in used trailers, it knew or should have known the danger of mismatched parts. The evidence showed Fruehauf at one time marketed its own multipiece rims and was aware of the danger of a mismatched rim and ring as early as 1963. Before selling its used trailers, Fruehauf did not break down the wheel assemblies for inspection although it would have taken only forty minutes per trailer to do so. Fruehauf's own safety expert testified the company should have inspected the wheel assemblies since Fruehauf knew the danger of mismatched parts. Viewing this evidence in the light most favorable to Scott, the issue of a breach of duty was properly submitted to the jury and the motions for directed verdict and j.n.o.v. were properly denied. See Graham v. Whitaker, 282 S.C. 393, 321 S.E.2d 40 (1984).
Fruehauf further contends the trial judge should have found Scott contributory negligent or assumed the risk as a matter of law based on evidence Scott's employer warned him to put the tires in a cage before inflating them to avoid the danger of exploding rims. The issues of contributory
Finally, appellants contest several evidentially rulings by the trial judge. The admission or exclusion of evidence is within the trial judge's discretion. Manning v. City of Columbia, 297 S.C. 451, 377 S.E.2d 335 (1989). We find no abuse of discretion in the trial judge's rulings.
DAMAGES
Fruehauf contends punitive damages should not be recoverable in a strict liability case because liability is not based on the defendant's conduct.
This Court recently decided this issue in Barnwell v. Barber-Colman Co., ___ S.C. ___, 393 S.E.2d 162 (1989), disallowing punitive damages in an action based solely on strict liability. In this case, however, the jury specifically found Fruehauf liable on both strict liability and negligence causes of action. Punitive damages are recoverable in a negligence cause of action when the defendant's conduct rises to the level of a willful, wanton, or malicious violation of the plaintiff's rights. Harris v. Burnside, 261 S.C. 190, 199 S.E.2d 65 (1973). A conscious failure to exercise due care constitutes willfulness. Tinsley v. Western Union Telegraph Co., 72 S.C. 350, 51 S.E. 913 (1905). On the basis of the evidence presented, the jury could have found Fruehauf's negligence rose to the level of willfulness in failing to inspect the wheel assembly when it was aware of the danger of mismatched parts. We hold the award of punitive damages proper based upon the jury's finding of Fruehauf's liability in negligence.
Fruehauf further contends the trial judge erred in submitting Piedmont's crossclaim for indemnification to the jury because there is no right of indemnity between joint tortfeasors. We agree.
Under South Carolina law, there can be no indemnity among mere j
Page 1 2 3 South Carolina Personal Injury Attorneys