Brown v. Singleton
| Decision Date | 09 August 1999 |
| Docket Number | No. 3032.,3032. |
| Citation | 522 S.E.2d 816,337 S.C. 74 |
| Court | South Carolina Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Annie D. BROWN, as Personal Representative of the Estate of James Mitchell Brown, Jr., Appellant, v. Monnieque SINGLETON, M.D., Respondent. |
Deena Smith McRackan, of Charleston, for appellant.
Charles E. Carpenter, Jr., and S. Elizabeth Brosnan, both of Richardson, Plowden, Carpenter & Robinson, of Columbia; and David A. Brown, of Aiken, for respondent.
Annie D. Brown, as Personal Representative of the Estate of James Mitchell Brown, Jr., brought wrongful death and survival actions against Dr. Monnieque Singleton. The trial court granted Dr. Singleton summary judgment, ruling Brown's satisfaction in full of a Rhode Island judgment precluded her from prosecuting any further action. Brown appeals. We affirm.
In March of 1993, James Brown sought treatment from Dr. Singleton for symptoms that included an itch and rash. Dr. Singleton diagnosed James as suffering from an allergic reaction. James informed Dr. Singleton that he was allergic to shrimp and cashews. Dr. Singleton advised James to avoid these foods, and treated his existing allergic symptoms.
That fall, James attended Johnson & Wales University in Warwick, Rhode Island. On October 19, 1993, while dining in one of the school's facilities, James unknowingly ingested shrimp in an eggroll, which he believed to be a vegetable eggroll. James died as a result of an anaphylactic reaction to the shrimp he had ingested.
Brown, as the administrator of James's estate, brought an action in the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island against Johnson & Wales under Rhode Island's statutes for Death by Wrongful Act, R.I. Gen. Laws, § 10-7-1, et. seq., seeking pecuniary damages, as well as damages for pain and suffering. A jury awarded Brown $434,020.00 in damages. Johnson & Wales paid Brown the full verdict amount plus interest and costs.
After the conclusion of the Rhode Island trial, Brown commenced the present action against Dr. Singleton. Dr. Singleton filed a motion for summary judgment arguing, because of the satisfaction of the judgment against Johnson & Wales, Brown was foreclosed from re-litigating any issues relevant to damages. In response, Brown argued the Rhode Island judgment should be treated as a release or a covenant not to sue, which would not preclude her from bringing an action against a second tortfeasor. She also asserted that punitive damages were not authorized by the Rhode Island statute and all of the damages awarded by the jury were actual damages. She thus argued she had not had the opportunity to litigate punitive damages against Dr. Singleton.
The trial judge granted the motion for summary judgment. He held the fact that Rhode Island does not permit the recovery of punitive damages cannot be a basis for proceeding in South Carolina where the actual damages have been fully litigated in Rhode Island and the judgment has been satisfied in full. He found punitive damages do not exist as an independent cause of action and there must be proof of actual or nominal damages to support a verdict of punitive damages. The trial judge further noted, because Johnson & Wales maintains an office and conducts business in Charleston, Brown could have brought both actions in South Carolina. The court concluded Brown "had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue of damages for both wrongful death and the survival action ... and that Judgment has been satisfied in full." He therefore found Brown was precluded from re-litigating any issues relevant to damages.
Brown first contends the trial judge erred in refusing to allow her to litigate the issue of actual damages against Dr. Singleton. She argues, under South Carolina law, she is not precluded from bringing an action against one tortfeasor merely because another tortfeasor has obtained either a covenant not to sue or a release. She contends, under the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 886 (1979), the discharge of a judgment against one of several tortfeasors, each of whom is liable for a single harm, is treated like a release or covenant not to sue. She argues, therefore, the judgment against Johnson & Wales should be treated like a release or covenant not to sue, and she should be allowed to proceed against Dr. Singleton for actual damages. We disagree.
The law in South Carolina is clear that there can be but one satisfaction for an injury or wrong. See Garner v. Wyeth Laboratories, Inc., 585 F.Supp. 189, 192 (D.S.C.1984) (); Truesdale v. South Carolina Highway Dep't., 264 S.C. 221, 235, 213 S.E.2d 740, 746 (1975), overruled on other grounds by McCall by Andrews v. Batson, 285 S.C. 243, 329 S.E.2d 741 (1985) (); Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company v. Whetstone, 243 S.C. 61, 67, 132 S.E.2d 172, 174 (1963) ().
In Garner, supra, the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina, applying South Carolina law, determined the satisfaction of a judgment against one tortfeasor extinguished the plaintiff's cause of action against a second tortfeasor. There, the court rejected the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 886 (1979) which provides, "The discharge of a judgment against one of several tortfeasors each of whom is liable for a single harm is treated like a release or a covenant not to sue given to one of several tortfeasors for a claim not reduced to judgment." Garner at 191. We agree with the district court that § 886 of the Restatement is not consistent with South Carolina law, which holds there may be only one satisfaction for an...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McGee v. BRUCE HOSP. SYSTEM
...877 P.2d at 572 (punitive damages against two or more defendants must be separately determined). 4. To the extent Brown v. Singleton, 337 S.C. 74, 522 S.E.2d 816 (Ct.App.1999), is inconsistent with this opinion, it is ...
- In the Matter of Broadwater