Fortune v. Gibson

Decision Date21 January 1991
Docket NumberNo. 1634,1634
Citation403 S.E.2d 674,304 S.C. 279
CourtSouth Carolina Court of Appeals
PartiesKareem FORTUNE, a minor under the age of Fourteen (14) years, Respondent, v. Anthony B. GIBSON and Howard Trapp, Jr., of Whom Howard Trapp, Jr., is the Appellant. Darryl McGHANEY, Respondent, v. Anthony B. GIBSON and Howard Trapp, Jr., of Whom Howard Trapp, Jr., is the Appellant. Appeal of Howard TRAPP, Jr. (2 cases) . Heard

Thomas C. Cofield and R. Lewis Johnson of Barnes, Alford, Stork & Johnson, Columbia, for appellant.

Nelson B. Parker, Manning, William B. Woods of Brown & Woods, Columbia, and John E. Miles, Sumter, for respondents.

PER CURIAM:

This is an appeal from judgment in two negligence actions that were consolidated for trial. Kareem Fortune and Darryl McGhaney were passengers in a car driven by Anthony Gibson. Gibson's car collided with one driven by Howard Trapp, Jr., and Fortune and McGhaney sued Gibson and Trapp for injuries they suffered as a result of the accident. Gibson filed a cross-claim against Trapp for his damages. After the parties agreed to a bifurcated trial, the issue of liability was tried and a jury returned a verdict against Trapp in favor of Fortune, McGhaney, and Gibson. During the recess before the damages phase, one of the jurors was selected for another jury. The judge recessed until the full jury could be reassembled. During that recess, two additional jurors were seated on yet another jury. The judge then asked the parties if they would proceed in the damages phase with less than twelve jurors. Trapp refused. Thereafter, the judge sustained a motion, over Trapp's objection, to continue the damages phase until the next term of court. Trapp moved for a new trial absolute on the ground that he was entitled to have the same jury decide the damages issue as had decided the issue of liability. The motion was denied. The damages phase was tried at a later term of court with a different jury. The jury awarded Fortune, McGhaney, and Gibson damages against Trapp. Trapp appeals. We affirm.

Trapp asserts two arguments on appeal: (1) the circuit court erred in continuing the damages phase to a successive term before a different jury; and (2) the court erred in submitting the case to the jury on interrogatories which did not include a specific interrogatory on Trapp's contributory negligence defense against Gibson's cross-claim.

I.

We note from the outset that this is not a case in which we must decide the propriety of the bifurcated trial; all parties consented to separate trials on the issues of liability and damages. Instead, the question before us is whether the same jury that decided the liability issue also must decide the issue of damages.

We hold there is no per se rule that the same jury must decide both issues. To hold otherwise would be to ignore a fundamental principle underlying bifurcation: a trial may be bifurcated only if the issues are so distinct that a trial of each alone would not result in injustice. See In re Plywood Antitrust Litigation, 655 F.2d 627 (5th Cir.1981). The very purpose of this principle is to cover cases in which separate juries decide separate issues. If South Carolina Rule of Civil Procedure 42(b) contemplated bifurcation before the same jury only, there would be no need for the requirement that the issues be distinct. Indeed, it has...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Creighton v. Coligny Plaza Ltd.
    • United States
    • South Carolina Court of Appeals
    • November 30, 1998
    ...should be bifurcated only if the issues are so distinct that trial of each alone would not result in injustice. Fortune v. Gibson, 304 S.C. 279, 403 S.E.2d 674 (Ct.App.1991). Where evidence relevant to the issues of both hability and damages overlap, bifurcation is inappropriate. Id. The tr......
  • Scdot v. First Carolina Corp. of S.C.
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • February 27, 2007
    ...the court must consider the question or interrogatory along with the instructions given to the jury. Fortune v. Gibson, 304 S.C. 279, 282, 403 S.E.2d 674, 675 (Ct.App.1991) (finding that special interrogatories and instructions must be considered together). The prejudicial effect of a defec......
  • Ligon v. Norris
    • United States
    • South Carolina Court of Appeals
    • October 30, 2006
    ...reversal on this issue. Interrogatories must be considered in conjunction with the jury instructions. Fortune v. Gibson, 304 S.C. 279, 282, 403 S.E.2d 674, 675 (Ct.App.1991). During general charges to the jury, the trial court instructed that the verdict must be unanimous. Again when the sp......
  • Flagstar Corp. v. Royal Surplus Lines, 2866.
    • United States
    • South Carolina Court of Appeals
    • June 29, 1998
    ...by jury as declared by the Constitution or as given by a statute of the State. This court addressed Rule 42(b) in Fortune v. Gibson, 304 S.C. 279, 403 S.E.2d 674 (Ct.App.1991). There the parties agreed to bifurcation of the liability and damages phases of the negligence trial, but expected ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
7 books & journal articles
  • Chapter 49 Special Verdicts and Interrogatories
    • United States
    • South Carolina Civil Procedure (SCBar)
    • Invalid date
    ...577, 741 S.E.2d 34 (Ct. App. 2013) (improper for court to submit non-binding interrogatory to jury after verdict).[12] Fortune v. Gibson, 304 S.C. 279, 403 S.E.2d 674 (Ct. App. 1991).[13] Scruggs v. Quality Elec. Servs., Inc., 282 S.C. 542, 320 S.E.2d 49 (Ct. App. 1984); Miranda v. Nissan M......
  • Chapter 42 Consolidation; Separate Trials
    • United States
    • South Carolina Civil Procedure (SCBar)
    • Invalid date
    ...Stone v. Thompson, 418 S.C. 599, 605 n.3, 795 S.E.2d 49, 52 n.3 (Ct. App. 2016) (applying rule in family court).[14] Fortune v. Gibson, 304 S.C. 279, 403 S.E.2d 674 (Ct. App. 1991).[15] Wright v. Heister Const. Co., 389 S.C. 504, 698 S.E.2d 822 (Ct. App. 2010).[16] Creighton v. Coligny Plaz......
  • Rule 42. Consolidation; Separate Trials
    • United States
    • South Carolina Rules Annotated (SCBar) (2020 Ed.) South Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure VI. Trials
    • Invalid date
    ...bifurcation before the same jury only, there would be no need for the requirement that the issues be distinct. Fortune v. Gibson, 304 S.C. 279, 281, 403 S.E.2d 674, 675 (Ct. App. 1991). Consolidation "[A]lthough Rule 42(b), SCRCP, provides that once a cause of action has been pled, the cour......
  • Rule 42. Consolidation; Separate Trials
    • United States
    • South Carolina Rules Annotated (SCBar) (2021 Ed.) VI. Trials
    • Invalid date
    ...bifurcation before the same jury only, there would be no need for the requirement that the issues be distinct. Fortune v. Gibson, 304 S.C. 279, 281, 403 S.E.2d 674, 675 (Ct. App. 1991). Consolidation "[A]lthough Rule 42(b), SCRCP, provides that once a cause of action has been pled, the cour......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT