Foster v. South Carolina Dept. of Highways and Public Transp.

Decision Date09 October 1991
Docket NumberNo. 23548,23548
Citation306 S.C. 519,413 S.E.2d 31
CourtSouth Carolina Supreme Court
PartiesJeanette FOSTER, Respondent-Appellant, v. SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS AND PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION, Appellant-Respondent. . Heard

William U. Gunn and Perry D. Boulier, both of Holcombe, Bomar, Cothran and Gunn, P.A., Spartanburg, for appellant-respondent.

Kenneth C. Anthony, Jr., of Knie, White & Anthony, Spartanburg, for respondent-appellant.

TOAL, Justice:

In this suit the Respondent-Appellant, Foster, sued the Highway Department under the South Carolina Tort Claims Act (SCTCA). The Highway Department appeals the verdict for Foster claiming that: (1) the trial court erred in admitting a letter written to the Department by a resident, (2) the trial court erred in failing to find Foster contributorily negligent as a matter of law, and (3) as a matter of law, the Highway Department's employees' acts were discretionary and entitled to immunity under the Act. Foster cross-appealed, claiming the trial court erred in reducing her Three Million ($3,000,000) Dollar verdict to Two Hundred and Fifty Thousand ($250,000) Dollars pursuant to the liability cap provided in the SCTCA. Foster asserts the cap is unconstitutional. We affirm.


On May 3, 1989, Jeanette Foster inadvertently drove her right wheels off the edge of Highway 295. Due to the drop in the shoulder, she lost control of her car as she attempted to drive back on to the highway. Foster's car veered off the road and down an embankment. She was thrown from her car and suffered serious injuries which left her a quadriplegic.

Foster alleged the Highway Department failed to give proper warning of the low shoulder and failed to properly maintain and repair the highway. The Highway Department denied the allegations and raised the defense of contributory negligence.

The jury returned a verdict of Three Million ($3,000,000) Dollars for Foster. The trial court reduced the verdict to Two Hundred and Fifty Thousand ($250,000) Dollars in accordance with the applicable liability cap provided in the SCTCA. S.C.Code Ann. § 15-78-120(a)(1) (Supp.1990).

Admissibility of the Letter for the Purpose of Proving the Department had Notice

Foster introduced into evidence a letter sent to the Highway Department prior to Foster's accident by a resident of Highway 295. The given purpose of the letter was to show the Department had notice of the low shoulders on this particular stretch of Highway 295. The Department attempted to prevent the admission of this letter by conceding the Department had notice the shoulders were too low. The trial court properly denied the Department's objection on these grounds. A letter evidencing the Department had notice that there were portions of the highway with drops of eight inches is not rendered inadmissible by a general concession that the Department knew the shoulders were low. See, doCanto v. Ametek, Inc., 367 Mass. 776, 328 N.E.2d 873 (1975). See also State v. Greene, 255 S.C. 548, 180 S.E.2d 179 (1971) (the requiring of parties to stipulate is within the discretion of the trial judge).

The Department also objected to the letter on the grounds that it contained opinions and irrelevant accusations. The Department objected to the letter in its entirety. At no time did the Department ask the trial judge to redact the irrelevant portions of the letter. Had such a motion been made, it would have been proper to grant it. However, where evidence is objected to in its entirety, some portion of which is admissible, such objection is not well taken, even though some portions of the evidence are in fact inadmissible. Johnson v. State, 146 Ga. 190(2), 91 S.E. 42 (1916). Thus, the letter was properly admitted.

The trial court attempted to cure any unduly prejudicial affect of the letter by instructing the jury that it was to be considered only on the issue of notice. The Department made no objection to the limiting instructions. Therefore, the Department has waived its right to objection to the inadequacy of these instructions.

Contributory Negligence

The Highway Department contends Foster was contributorily negligent as a matter of law. Negligence being a mixed question of law and fact, it is the court's duty to define negligence, but it is the jury's province to draw the inference from the facts. Rogers v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Co., 222 S.C. 66, 71 S.E.2d 585 (1952). Only when the evidence supports but one reasonable inference does the question become a matter of law for the court. Id. The Department relies on Bunton v. South Carolina State Highway Department, 186 S.C. 463, 196 S.E. 188 (1938). In Bunton this Court held the driver who drove off the edge of the paved road was contributorily negligent as a matter of law. Bunton, however, does not stand for the general proposition that driving off the edge of the road is negligence. The thorough recitation of the facts in Bunton indicate the court was not declaring a general principle but applying the law to the narrow facts presented. See also Morgan v. Greenville County, 189 S.C. 368, 1 S.E.2d 144 (1939) (Bunton limited to its precise facts). In Bunton, the road was perfectly straight, and the edge of the paved portion was clearly visible. In the instant case, it is undisputed Foster was maneuvering a curve at the time of the accident. Additionally, Foster's ability to perceive the dangerous drop in the shoulder is contested. Therefore, Bunton is not controlling, and the issue of contributory negligence was properly submitted to the jury.

Discretionary Immunity

The Department contends a suit alleging its negligence in the repair and maintenance of the highway is barred as a matter of law by the discretionary immunity provision of the SCTCA. This provision provides The governmental entity is not liable for a loss resulting from ... the exercise of discretion or judgment by the governmental entity or employee or the performance or failure to perform any act or service which is in the discretion or judgment of the governmental entity or employee....

S.C.Code Ann. § 15-78-60(5) 1 The interpretation of this provision was the subject of the recent case of Niver v. Department of Highways and Public Transportation, 302 S.C. 461, 395 S.E.2d 728 (Ct.App.1990). InNiver, the court held the governmental entity bears the burden of establishing discretionary immunity as an affirmative defense. Id. at 463-64, 395 S.E.2d at 730. Furthermore, the court held mere room for discretion on the part of the governmental entity was not sufficient to invoke the discretionary immunity provision. Id. Proof that the governmental employees faced with alternatives, actually weighed competing considerations and made a conscious choice is necessary. Id. We affirm this interpretation of the discretionary immunity provision. Further, the governmental entity must show that in weighing the competing considerations and alternatives, it utilized accepted professional standards appropriate to resolve the issue before them. It is not enough to say the defect was noted and a decision was made not to repair it.

In this case, the Department's employees testified they had no plan for inspecting the roads and no criteria for making repairs. The Department's maintenance engineer testified only generally the factors he considers in prioritizing repair jobs. There was no testimony reflecting a conscious decision, weighing the appropriate factors, was ever made in reference to the repair and maintenance of this road. Therefore, the Department was not entitled to immunity.

Unconstitutionality of the Liability Cap

Foster cross-appealed on the ground that the reduction of her verdict was in error. She argues the SCTCA...

To continue reading

Request your trial
40 cases
  • Proctor v. Dept. of Health
    • United States
    • South Carolina Court of Appeals
    • March 20, 2006
    ... ... No. 4098 ... Court of Appeals of South Carolina ... Heard March 8, 2006 ... sheds where used tires for sale to the public could be separately stored. However, only one ... S.C. Dep't of Transp., 344 S.C. 115, 121, 542 S.E.2d 736, 739 ... S.C. Dep't of Highways and Public Transp., 323 S.C. 227, 473 S.E.2d 890 ... ' home and placed him in a therapeutic foster home. This arrangement was short-lived, however, ... ...
  • Sloan v. Sc Bd. of Physical Therapy ex'Mnrs
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • September 25, 2006
    ... ... Orthopaedic Sports Medicine, LLC; and South Carolina Medical Association, Plaintiffs, ... Of ... would best comport with the law and public policies ... Page 606 ... of this state and ... Rabon v. S.C. State Hwy. Dept., 258 S.C. 154, 157, 187 S.E.2d 652, 654 (1972) ... to survive a constitutional challenge." Foster v. S.C. Dept. of Highways Pub. Transp., 306 S.C ... ...
  • Andrews v. Metro. Water Reclamation Dist. of Greater Chi.
    • United States
    • Illinois Supreme Court
    • December 19, 2019
    ... ... the failure to supervise an activity on public property, pursuant to section 3-108 of the Tort ... , 739 P.2d 564, 569 (1987) ( en banc ); Foster v. South Carolina Department of Highways & Public ... ...
  • Doe ex rel. Johnson v. South Carolina, Soc. Serv.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit
    • March 5, 2010
    ... ... ; Supervisory Roes, # 1-10; Caseworker Roes, # 1-10; Foster Parent Roes, # 1-10, Defendants ... No. 08-2161 ... [ ] two important interests—the need to hold public officials accountable when they exercise power ... Niver v. South Carolina Dep't of Highways & Pub. Transp., 302 S.C. 461, 395 S.E.2d 728, 730 ... ...
  • 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