Dawkins v. Sell
| Decision Date | 01 September 2021 |
| Docket Number | Opinion No. 5857,Appellate Case No. 2017-002520 |
| Citation | 434 S.C. 572,865 S.E.2d 1 |
| Parties | Maurice DAWKINS, Appellant, v. James A. SELL, Respondent. |
| Court | South Carolina Court of Appeals |
Richard Alexander Murdaugh and William Franklin Barnes, III, both of Peters Murdaugh Parker Eltzroth & Detrick, PA, of Hampton, for Appellant.
Kelly Dennis Dean and Ernest Mitchell Griffith, both of Griffith Freeman & Liipfert, LLC, of Beaufort, for Respondent.
In this negligence action against James A. Sell, Maurice Dawkins appeals the trial court's denial of his motions for a directed verdict, a judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV), and a new trial. Dawkins argues the trial court erred in denying his motions for a directed verdict and JNOV on (1) Sell's affirmative defense of Dennis Owens's intervening and superseding negligence and (2) Sell's negligence. Dawkins also asserts the trial court erred in denying his motion for a new trial because (1) the jury instruction on intervening and superseding negligence was unwarranted, (2) Sell improperly published Dawkins's interrogatory answer, and (3) Sell exceeded the empty-chair defense. We affirm.
This matter arises out of an automobile accident that occurred on I-95 in the morning hours of August 21, 2010. Sell, who was sixty-one years old at the time, was helping his son move from Ohio to Georgia, and he was driving a moving truck (Moving Truck) with his grandson. Sell began driving the truck around 11:30 A.M. on August 20, and he stopped a few times to rest and help repair his son's vehicle. Between 3:30 and 4:00 A.M. on August 21, while it was raining, Sell lost control of the Moving Truck when the front right tire veered off the lane of travel into the emergency lane. Sell attempted to return the Moving Truck to the lane of travel, but the truck overturned and came to rest blocking both lanes of travel, resulting in the emergency lane being the only navigable path around the Moving Truck.
Multiple individuals, including Dawkins, stopped to render aid. While these individuals were helping Sell and his grandson exit the vehicle and ensuring they were uninjured, between ten to twenty other vehicles and one to three tractor-trailer trucks passed the Moving Truck via the emergency lane. Approximately five to ten minutes after the Moving Truck overturned, a tractor-trailer truck (Semi) owned by Pierce National, Inc. and operated by Owens collided with the Moving Truck, causing it to strike and injure Sell, Dawkins, and the other drivers rendering aid.
Dawkins filed a complaint against Sell, Owens, and Pierce National and amended it twice. Dawkins asserted, among other claims, that Sell and Owens were both negligent in their operation of their respective vehicles and their negligence caused him harm. Sell filed answers to Dawkins's complaints and asserted, among other defenses, that Owens's negligence intervened and superseded any negligence on his part. Additionally, Sell asserted a cross-claim against Pierce National and Owens contending he had been injured by their negligence. Prior to trial, Pierce National and Owens settled with Dawkins and Sell.
The trial occurred from October 9 through 12, 2017. Prior to trial, Dawkins moved in limine to exclude evidence generally related to the prior inclusion of Pierce National and Owens in the trial and their settlement. The trial court excluded some evidence that was agreed upon by the parties but denied the motion to exclude the remaining evidence. After Dawkins rested, Sell published portions of Owens's deposition relating to his conduct prior to the accident and called John W. Pinckney, an expert in motor carrier safety and compliance, to testify regarding Owens's conduct. At the close of evidence, both parties moved for a directed verdict on Sell's intervening and superseding negligence defense, and the court denied both motions. Dawkins also moved for a directed verdict on the issue of Sell's negligence, which the court also denied. The trial court instructed the jury on the defense of intervening and superseding negligence and other particular statutes that Dawkins claimed Sell violated. After deliberating, the jury issued a general verdict for Sell. Dawkins moved for JNOV or a new trial in the alternative, both of which the trial court denied. This appeal followed.
I. Did the trial court err in denying Dawkins's motions for a directed verdict and JNOV on the issue of Sell's affirmative
defense of Owens's intervening and superseding negligence?
II. Did the trial court err in denying Dawkins's motions for a directed verdict and JNOV on the issue of Sell's negligence?
III. Did the trial court err in denying Dawkins's motion for a new trial because the jury charge on intervening and superseding negligence was unwarranted?
IV. Did the trial court err in denying Dawkins's motion for a new trial because Sell improperly published Dawkins's interrogatory answers identifying a trucking expert previously retained by Dawkins?
V. Did the trial court err in denying Dawkins's motion for a new trial because Sell exceeded the bounds of the empty-chair defense?
A negligence action is an action at law. Hartman v. Jensen's, Inc. , 277 S.C. 501, 502, 289 S.E.2d 648, 648 (1982). On appeal from an action at law tried by a jury, appellate courts correct errors of law and do not disturb the jury's factual findings unless the record reveals no evidence reasonably supporting those findings. Wright v. Craft , 372 S.C. 1, 18, 640 S.E.2d 486, 495 (Ct. App. 2006).
When ruling on directed verdict or JNOV motions, "the [trial] court must view the evidence and all reasonable inferences drawn from the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party" and must deny the motions "[i]f the evidence at trial yields more than one reasonable inference or its inference is in doubt." Kunst v. Loree , 424 S.C. 24, 37–38, 817 S.E.2d 295, 301–02 (Ct. App. 2018). We apply the same standard on appeal. Wright , 372 S.C. at 18, 640 S.E.2d at 495. Neither the trial court nor this court has the authority to make credibility determinations or resolve conflicting evidence. Kunst , 424 S.C. at 38, 817 S.E.2d at 302. The trial court's ruling on a directed verdict or JNOV motion will be reversed only if the ruling is governed by an error of law or no evidence supports the ruling. Austin v. Stokes-Craven Holding Corp. , 387 S.C. 22, 42, 691 S.E.2d 135, 145 (2010).
"[T]he appellate court reviews a denial of a new trial motion for an abuse of discretion." Kunst , 424 S.C. at 38, 817 S.E.2d at 302 (quoting Duncan v. Hampton Cnty. Sch. Dist. No. 2 , 335 S.C. 535, 547, 517 S.E.2d 449, 455 (Ct. App. 1999) ). "An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court's order is controlled by an error of law or when there is no evidentiary support for the trial court's factual conclusions." Stokes-Craven Holding Corp. v. Robinson , 416 S.C. 517, 536, 787 S.E.2d 485, 495 (2016). "In determining whether the [trial] court erred in denying a motion for a new trial, the appellate court must consider the testimony and reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party." Kunst , 424 S.C. at 38, 817 S.E.2d at 302.
I. Dawkins's Motions for a Directed Verdict and JNOV
Dawkins argues the trial court erred in denying his motions for a directed verdict and JNOV on Sell's intervening and superseding negligence defense. We disagree.
A plaintiff must prove three elements on a negligence claim: "(1) a duty of care owed by [the] defendant to [the] plaintiff; (2) breach of that duty by a negligent act or omission; and (3) damage proximately resulting from the breach of duty." J.T. Baggerly v. CSX Transp., Inc. , 370 S.C. 362, 368–69, 635 S.E.2d 97, 101 (2006). Proximate cause is ordinarily a question of fact for the jury and "requires proof of: (1) causation-in-fact, and (2) legal cause." Id. at 369, 635 S.E.2d at 101 ; see Gause v. Smithers , 403 S.C. 140, 150, 742 S.E.2d 644, 649 (2013) . "Causation-in-fact is proved by establishing the injury would not have occurred ‘but for’ the defendant's negligence, and legal cause is proved by establishing foreseeability." Baggerly , 370 S.C. at 369, 635 S.E.2d at 101. Foreseeability "is determined by looking to the natural and probable consequences of the defendant's conduct." Gause , 403 S.C. at 150, 742 S.E.2d at 649.
"Evidence of an independent negligent act of a third party is directed to the question of proximate cause." Matthews v. Porter , 239 S.C. 620, 628, 124 S.E.2d 321, 325 (1962). "For an intervening force to be a superseding cause that relieves an actor from liability, the intervening cause must be a cause that could not have been reasonably foreseen or anticipated." Stephens v. CSX Transp., Inc. , 415 S.C. 182, 205, 781 S.E.2d 534, 546 (2015) (quoting Small v. Pioneer Mach., Inc. , 329 S.C. 448, 467, 494 S.E.2d 835, 844 (Ct. App. 1997) ). If the original tortfeasor's "negligence appears merely to have brought about a condition of affairs, or a situation in which another and entirely independent and efficient agency intervenes to cause the injury, the latter is to be deemed the direct or proximate cause, and the former only the indirect or remote cause." Gibson v. Gross , 280 S.C. 194, 197, 311 S.E.2d 736, 739 (Ct. App. 1983) (quoting Locklear v. Se. Stages, Inc. , 193 S.C. 309, 318, 8 S.E.2d 321, 325 (1940) ). The defense of intervening third-party negligence ordinarily presents a question of fact for the jury and only rarely becomes a question of law for the court to determine. See Small v. Pioneer Mach., Inc. , 316 S.C. 479, 489, 450 S.E.2d 609, 615...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Edwards v. Scapa Waycross, Inc.
...Contribution Among Tortfeasors Act (the Act) at section 15-38-15 of the South Carolina Code (Supp. 2020)." Dawkins v. Sell , 434 S.C. 572, 590, 865 S.E.2d 1, 10 (Ct. App. 2021) (quoting Smith , 419 S.C. at 557, 799 S.E.2d at 484 ). In seeking to establish an empty-chair defense, a defendant......
-
Wood v. Horry Cnty. Sch. Dist.
... ... for JNOV and refusing to reduce the award to $300,000 because ... evidence in the record supported its ruling. See Dawkins ... v. Sell, 434 S.C. 572, 580, 865 S.E.2d 1, 5 (Ct. App ... 2021) ("The trial court's ruling on a directed ... verdict or JNOV ... ...