Cohens v. Atkins, 2903.
| Court | Court of Appeals of South Carolina |
| Writing for the Court | ANDERSON. |
| Citation | 333 S.C. 345,509 S.E.2d 286 |
| Parties | Alphonso COHENS, Respondent, v. Lonnie G. ATKINS, Appellant. |
| Docket Number | No. 2903.,2903. |
| Decision Date | 16 November 1998 |
333 S.C. 345
509 S.E.2d 286
v.
Lonnie G. ATKINS, Appellant
No. 2903.
Court of Appeals of South Carolina.
Heard November 4, 1998.
Decided November 16, 1998.
Rehearing Denied January 30, 1999.
John W. Carrigg, Jr., and Jon T. Clabaugh, Jr., both of Hammer, Hammer, Carrigg & Potterfield, of Columbia, for Respondent.
ANDERSON, Judge:
This is a negligence action brought by Alphonso Cohens for damages sustained in an automobile accident. The jury awarded Cohens $3,700 in actual damages. On appeal, the defendant, Lonnie Atkins, contends the trial judge erred (1) in failing to charge the complete text of S.C.Code Ann. § 56-5-1520(a) (1991) (articulating general rule on driving too fast for conditions) and (2) in excluding evidence that Cohens's attorney referred him to a physician for additional medical treatment. We reverse and remand.
FACTUAL/PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The accident occurred on Highway 378 in Richland County on June 11, 1995. It was a rainy Sunday afternoon, just before 5:00 p.m. Cohens testified that he entered the right lane of Highway 378, a four-lane highway, from another road.
Cohens was in good health before the accident, but his neck and back were hurt in the collision. On Sunday evening, he went to a Doctor's Care office, where he received a neck brace and medicine. Cohens testified he went to the emergency room at Baptist Medical Center the following day because he continued to have pain. He saw Dr. Joseph Cavanaugh, an internist, for a total of five visits, and went to Columbia Rehabilitation for eight physical therapy sessions. Cohens has fully recovered from the accident. Cohens presented medical bills totaling $2,192.88 which were incurred as a result of the accident. Dr. Cavanaugh was not called as a witness at trial. Cohens also claimed $3,069.81 in property damage for repairs to his car and $224 for two days of lost wages. The jury returned a verdict of $3,700 in favor of Cohens. Atkins appeals.
ISSUES
(1) Did the trial judge err in failing to charge the complete text of § 56-5-1520(a)?
(2) Did the trial judge err in excluding evidence that Cohens was referred for additional medical treatment by his attorney?
STANDARD OF REVIEW
In an action at law on appeal of a case tried by a jury, the jurisdiction of this Court extends merely to corrections of errors of law, and a factual finding of the jury will not be disturbed unless a review of the record discloses there is no evidence which reasonably supports the jury's findings.
LAW/ANALYSIS
1. JUDGE'S INSTRUCTION ON § 56-5-1520(a)
Atkins contends the trial judge erred in denying his request to charge the last sentence of § 56-5-1520(a), which the judge intentionally omitted from his instruction on the statute to the jury.
At trial, Atkins testified he was traveling in the left lane of Highway 378 when he saw a group of three vehicles entering the right lane from an entrance ramp. It had been raining and the road was wet. The middle vehicle, driven by Cohens, had a left turn signal on, but Cohens did not immediately attempt to move into the left lane. As Atkins approached the third vehicle in line, Cohens moved over into...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Hughey, 25096.
...charge. We disagree. The trial judge is required to charge only the current and correct law of South Carolina. Cohens v. Atkins, 333 S.C. 345, 509 S.E.2d 286 (Ct.App.1998). The substance of the law must be charged to the jury, not particular verbiage. Keaton v. Greenville Hosp. Sys., 334 S.......
-
Proctor v. Dept. of Health, 4098.
..."When instructing the jury, the trial court is required to charge only the current and correct law of South Carolina." Cohens v. Atkins, 333 S.C. 345, 349, 509 S.E.2d 286, 289 (Ct.App.1998). "The substance of the law is what must be instructed to the jury, not any particular verbiage.... A ......
-
Cedar Cove Homeowners Ass'n v. DiPietro, 4092.
...266 S.C. 81, 86, 221 S.E.2d 773, 775 (1976); Ellie, Inc. v. Miccichi, 358 S.C. 78, 594 S.E.2d 485 (Ct.App.2004) (citing Cohens v. Atkins, 333 S.C. 345, 509 S.E.2d 286 (Ct.App.1998)); Sherman v. W & B Enterprises, Inc., 357 S.C. 243, 592 S.E.2d 307 (Ct.App.2003). An action to enforce restric......
-
State v. Patterson, 4069.
...the current and correct law of South Carolina. State v. Hughey, 339 S.C. 439, 450, 529 S.E.2d 721, 727 (2000) (citing Cohens v. Atkins, 333 S.C. 345, 349, 509 S.E.2d 286, 289 (Ct.App.1998)); see also State v. Zeigler, 364 S.C. 94, 106, 610 S.E.2d 859, 865 (Ct.App.2005) ("Generally, the tria......