Green v. Johnson

• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: JUSTICE JAMES
• Citation: 446 S.C. 326,919 S.E.2d 894
• Docket Number: Appellate Case No. 2024-000642,Opinion No. 28296
• Decision Date: 13 August 2025
• Parties: Kacey GREEN and Charinrath Green, Respondents, v. Mervin Lee JOHNSON, Petitioner.

446 S.C. 326

919 S.E.2d 894

Kacey GREEN and Charinrath Green, Respondents,

v.Mervin Lee JOHNSON, Petitioner.

Appellate Case No. 2024-000642

Opinion No. 28296

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

Heard June 4, 2025

Filed August 13, 2025

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS

Appeal from Orangeburg County, James B. Jackson, Jr., Master-in-Equity

Todd Russell Flippin, of Holcombe Bomar, P.A., of Spartanburg, for Petitioner.

David Reynolds Williams and Virginia Watson Williams, both of Williams & Williams, of Orangeburg; and Edgar Mason West, of West Law Firm, P.A., of Moncks Corner, all for Respondents.

JUSTICE JAMES:

This appeal arises from a $1.76 million actual and punitive damage default judgment granted by the Orangeburg County master-in-equity to Kacey Green and Charinrath Green following a motor vehicle accident in which Mervin Johnson, a tractor-trailer driver employed by CDS Transport, Inc., rear-ended the Greens’ Tesla on I-26 in Charleston County. The master later reduced the award to $250,000. The parties cross-appealed, and, in an unpublished opinion, the court of appeals vacated the reduced award and reinstated the $1.76 million award. Green v. Johnson, Op. No. 2024-UP-024, 2024 WL 180690 (S.C. Ct. App. filed Jan. 17, 2024). We affirm in part and reverse in part the court of appeals’ decision and reinstate the master’s reduced award, with two modifications.

I.

The accident occurred on February 28, 2018. Johnson, who was employed as a truck driver by CDS Transport, rear-ended the Greens’ Tesla three consecutive times on I-26. After the accident, the Greens’ counsel and CDS Transport’s insurer, Claims Direct Access (CDA), engaged in very limited settlement negotiations. There is no evidence the Greens’ counsel agreed to alert CDA or CDS Transport if suit was commenced. In January 2019, the Greens commenced this action against Johnson only. Johnson did not answer or otherwise appear, default was entered by the circuit court on March 8, 2019, and the case was referred to the master. The master held a default judgment damages hearing on May 22, 2019. Because the evidence presented to the master during the default judgment damages hearing is relevant to the damages issue, we will now summarize that evidence.

Mr. and Mrs. Green were the sole witnesses at the hearing. Mr. Green testified his Tesla was traveling at 65 miles per hour and Johnson’s truck was traveling at 70-75 miles per hour at the time of the impacts. The Tesla was drivable after the accident. Because Roper Hospital in North Charleston was close to the scene, Mr. Green drove to Roper instead of requesting an ambulance. He and Mrs. Green were seen in the emergency room and released. The Greens received treatment from a Dr. Buncher at Charleston Pain & Rehabilitation, and Mrs. Green had an MRI at another facility. Mr. Green’s medical expenses totaled $5,970 and Mrs. Green’s medical expenses totaled $6,856. The Greens’ Tesla was equipped with cameras, and a video of the accident was introduced into evidence. Mr. Green testified it cost “$3,000 or something” to repair his Tesla. Mr. Green testified that when he sold the Tesla, he disclosed the damage and had to accept $10,000 less than what the vehicle was otherwise worth.¹

Both Mr. and Mrs. Green testified about their medical expenses, their injuries, and their treatment.² Mr. Green was thirty-two years old at the time of the hearing with a life expectancy of forty-four years, and Mrs. Green was twenty-eight with a life expectancy of fifty-two years. Mr. Green testified he suffered neck and back injuries and received treatment from Dr. Buncher from March through May of 2018. The treatment consisted of electrical stimulation, acupuncture, and deep tissue massage. Dr. Buncher, who did not testify, prescribed pain killers and muscle relaxers for both Mr. and Mrs. Green. Mr. Green testified he is “a computer guy” and his job requires him to sit for extended periods, which causes discomfort. He testified he also experiences a lot of discomfort standing for long stretches. He testified he and Mrs. Green were, for some period after the accident, sometimes unable to have “relations” because they were in pain. He testified he is now “able to do my basic functions and stay gainfully employed at my day job.” However, he testified his secondary employment as an Uber driver suffered because he could not tolerate sitting for long periods. He testified he began a new computer job after the accident at a wage sixty-five percent higher than what he was earning at the time of the accident. He testified he “expected” additional income of $40,000 in 2018 from his side job as an Uber driver, but he made only $24,000, which he attributed to his injuries.

Mrs. Green is from Thailand and did not speak English well at the time of the hearing, so Mr. Green provided most of the testimony about her injuries and damages. He testified she has headaches and neck pain, is not as energetic as she was before the accident, and had to leave her job as a waitress. No evidence of a lost wage claim for Mrs. Green was introduced. Mr. Green testified Mrs. Green has had “a tracking problem” with one of her eyes since the accident. She went to an eye doctor one time, but Mr. Green did not know what caused the problem. She sustained neck and back injuries and also went to Dr. Buncher during the same time frame as Mr. Green, perhaps slightly longer. She continues to have neck pain and headaches. According to Mr. Green, she was hot tempered before the accident but now has “a lot shorter fuse than before, especially when she’s got her headaches.” He testified she is less able to do chores, which causes him to have to do more.

During her limited testimony, Mrs. Green testified the collision was very frightening. She testified she sustained a neck injury and suffered frequent headaches. She said she sometimes still has headaches, but not as frequently as she did immediately after the accident, as the treatment from Dr. Buncher helped a lot. She testified she quit her job as a waitress at a Thai restaurant because she could not cater to the customers as her boss expected.

[1–3] At the close of the hearing, the Greens’ attorney requested a property damage award of $10,000 and stated to the master that an Orangeburg County jury would likely award $1,000,000 in actual damages for bodily injury and $750,000 in punitive damages in this case.³ In a written order, the master granted the exact relief requested and ordered the actual and punitive damages to be divided pro rata according to the Greens’ past and expected medical expenses, past and future pain and suffering, and past and future loss of enjoyment of life. The order was entered on June 5, 2019 and served upon CDS Transport and CDA on June 7, 2019. The record does not reflect when or if Johnson was served, so June 7 is the date upon which we rely. CDA or CDS Transport retained counsel for Johnson.⁴

II.

A.

On June 17, 2019, Johnson moved to dismiss the action for improper service of process (an issue not before us). He moved in the alternative to set aside the entry of default and default judgment under Rules 55(c) and 60(b) of the South Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure, claiming good cause exists to relieve him from default and that his failure to answer was based on excusable neglect. Of critical importance to our decision, Johnson also contended the awards were “out of proportion to the actual damages suffered in this case,” and “unreasonable under the circumstances.” Johnson has repeated that argument at every stage of this case.

In support of his motion, Johnson submitted the essentially identical affidavits of Breann Richardson, Claims Administrator for CDS Transport, and Nikole Shields, Senior Claims Consultant for CDA. Both Shields and Richardson stated Johnson was diagnosed with a heart condition in November 2018, underwent open-heart surgery which required an extensive recovery, and had not returned to work since then; both also stated Johnson was diagnosed with diabetes in June 2019, “for which he had been hospitalized on multiple occasions.” Shields and Richardson stated counsel for the Greens and CDA (through Shields) engaged in settlement negotiations. Both Shields and Richardson stated they reviewed the Tesla video of the accident, characterizing it as “relatively minor,” and both said the damage to the Tesla was “relatively minor.” There was no court reporter present for the hearing, and the master denied Johnson’s motion in a written order filed November 4, 2019. The order did not address Johnson’s contention that the $1.76 million award was excessive.

B.

Johnson timely moved to alter or amend the November 4 order. In his motion, Johnson repeated his Rule 55 and Rule 60 contentions. He also repeated his assertion that the awards were unreasonable in amount and disproportionate to the damages the Greens sustained—which, as just noted, the master did not address in his order. During the hearing of the motion to alter or amend, Johnson argued the Tesla video introduced during the default damages hearing proved the accident was relatively minor and argued the original award was disproportionate to the damages the Greens sustained. Johnson submitted additional evidence in the form of pre-suit correspondence between the Greens’ counsel and CDA/CDS Transport, the USAA subrogation claim for property damage, and a photograph taken of the rear of Mr. Green’s Tesla at the accident scene. After hearing argument, the master stated “I think the damages that I previously awarded are too high.”

The master issued an order again denying Johnson’s motion to be relieved from default; however, the master reduced the joint actual damages award to $190,000 and reduced the joint punitive damages award to $60,000. The master confirmed in his order that he viewed the Tesla video “at the original damages hearing” and that it showed “a relatively minor rear-end collision.” As was the case in the...