Durham v. Clements, 1133
| Decision Date | 21 March 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. 1133,1133 |
| Parties | Pamela DURHAM, Respondent, v. Stephen A. CLEMENTS, Appellant. . Heard |
| Court | South Carolina Court of Appeals |
Edward R. Cole, of Drennan, Shelor, Cole & Evins, Spartanburg, for appellant.
Ernest J. Howard and T. Preston Reid, of Howard, Howard, Francis & Reid, Greenville, for respondent.
Respondent, Pamela Durham, sued appellant, Stephen A. Clements, for damages arising from an automobile accident. Clements appeals the denial of his motions for a new trial on punitive damages, and, alternatively, a new trial absolute. We affirm.
On September 21, 1984, Clements, travelling in the opposite direction of Ms. Durham, crossed over into Ms. Durham's lane of traffic resulting in a head-on collision. After the introduction of evidence concerning liability and damages, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Ms. Durham for $45,861.69 actual damages and $150,000 punitive damages. Clements does not challenge liability on the award of actual damages, but contends the award of punitive damages was excessive.
The actual damage figure of $45,861.69 is equal to the exact amount of Ms. Durham's medical bills and lost wages. The trial judge surmised the jury figured in pain and suffering under punitive damages instead of actual damages. He, nevertheless, concluded the amount of punitive damages was not so shocking as to shock the conscience of the court nor out of line with damages awarded in cases of this sort. We agree.
In ruling on the denial of a motion for a new trial, we must consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Graham v. Whitaker, 282 S.C. 393, 321 S.E.2d 40 (1984). We will assume the truth of the evidence that supports the recovery of punitive damages. Cash v. Kim, 288 S.C. 292, 342 S.E.2d 61 (Ct.App.1986).
The evidence in the record shows Clements was driving in an extremely reckless manner. He was travelling between 50 and 65 miles per hour in a 35 mile per hour zone. The traffic was heavy as it was lunchtime and the parties were driving on a well travelled road. Clements was cutting in and out of traffic "shooting the gaps" while talking with his passenger instead of paying attention to the traffic. Upon reaching a truck stopped before him, he swerved, crossed the median and hit Ms. Durham head-on in her lane.
There is no mathematical formula for determining the proportion punitive damages should bear to actual damages, but such...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
South Carolina Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. v. Love Chevrolet, Inc.
...supervisory powers of the trial court. Thompson v. Home Security Life Ins., 271 S.C. 54, 244 S.E.2d 533 (1978); Durham v. Clements, 295 S.C. 90, 367 S.E.2d 174 (Ct.App.1988). We have repeatedly held that the trial judge alone has the power to grant a new trial nisi when he finds the amount ......
-
Jones v. Jim Walter Homes, Inc.
...result of caprice, passion or prejudice and ... so grossly excessive as to shock the conscience of the court." Durham v. Clements, 295 S.C. 90, 367 S.E.2d 174, 175 (Ct.App.1988). When assessing a punitive damage award, a court "should consider the character of the tort committed, the punish......