Koenig v. South Carolina Dept. of Public Safety

Decision Date08 October 1996
Docket NumberNo. 2608,2608
Citation325 S.C. 400,480 S.E.2d 98
PartiesCorrinne L.M. KOENIG, Respondent, v. SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, Appellant. . Heard
CourtSouth Carolina Court of Appeals

Patrick M. Teague and Frank L. Valenta, Jr., Columbia, for appellant.

Doak J. Wolfe, Columbia, for respondent.

HOWELL, Chief Judge:

Appellant South Carolina Department of Public Safety (the Department) appeals from an order requiring it to change the driving records of Respondent Corrinne Koenig to reflect a conviction for involuntary manslaughter rather than manslaughter. We reverse.

I.

Corrinne Koenig pled guilty to an indictment for involuntary manslaughter in Richland County arising out of the death of a pedestrian caused by the automobile she was operating. For that conviction she was sentenced by the court, and her driver's license was revoked by the Department for a period of one year. After the revocation period expired, Koenig sought to have her license reinstated by payment of the required fee and submission of proof of financial responsibility, as required by the Department. Her insurance agent, in order to compute her premium including surcharge points required under the Department of Insurance's "Merit Rating Plan," requested her driving record from the Department. These surcharges are determined based on the number of points assigned to convictions by the Department of Insurance for various categories of driving offenses. See 25A S.C.Ann.Regs. 69-13.1 (Supp.1995).

Koenig's driving record maintained by the Department reflected simply that she had been convicted of manslaughter. According to her insurance agent, whose testimony was submitted by affidavit, the merit rating plan assigns 20 insurance points to the crime of manslaughter but only 1 point to the crime of involuntary manslaughter. The agent stated that, had he not sought clarification from the Department, Koenig's insurance premium would have been based on the 20 points attributable to manslaughter, and would have cost Koenig an additional $1,500.00 per year.

Koenig brought an action against the Department seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to require the Department to modify her driving record to reflect a conviction for involuntary manslaughter instead of manslaughter. She argued that the Department's use of the general term manslaughter on her driving record had the potential to impose an unjust hardship on her, because her driving records are accessible to third parties who may mistakenly interpret it to mean she has been convicted of voluntary manslaughter.

The trial court denied Koenig's request for a temporary injunction. However, at the conclusion of the hearing, the parties agreed that all of the necessary evidence was before the trial court, and the proceeding was converted into one for summary judgment.

After considering the arguments of the parties, the trial court found in favor of Koenig. The trial court ordered the Department to "modify its Driver Records to delete the designation of the crime of 'manslaughter' from its records and to reflect 'involuntary manslaughter' as it pertains to the driving record of [Koenig]." This appeal followed.

II.

All persons operating a motor vehicle on the public highways must have a valid motor vehicle driver's license. See S.C.Code Ann. § 56-1-20 (1991). The Department must suspend or revoke the driving privileges of a person "upon receiving notice of the conviction of such person for: (1) Manslaughter resulting from the operation of a motor vehicle; or (2) Any felony under the laws of this State in the commission of which a motor vehicle used." S.C.Code Ann. § 56-1-280 (Supp.1995).

To facilitate administration of this responsibility, section 56-1-540(2) requires the Department to file accident reports and abstracts of court records of convictions and

maintain convenient records or make suitable notations in order that an individual record of each licensee showing the convictions of such licensee and the traffic accidents in which he has been involved shall be readily ascertainable and available for the consideration of the department upon application for renewal of license and at other suitable times.

S.C.Code Ann. § 56-1-540(2) (Supp.1995).

When construing a statute, a court must seek to ascertain and effectuate legislative intent. Spartanburg County Dep't of Soc. Servs. v. Little, 309 S.C. 122, 420 S.E.2d 499 (1992). The cardinal rule of statutory construction is that words used in a statute must be given their plain and ordinary meaning without resort to subtle or forced construction to limit or expand the operation of the statute. The language...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • Kiawah Dev. Partners, II v. S.C. Dep't of Health & Envtl. Control
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • 10 Diciembre 2014
    ...as it is neither arbitrary nor capricious, and does not constitute an abuse of discretion.”); Koenig v. S.C. Dep't of Pub. Safety, 325 S.C. 400, 405, 480 S.E.2d 98, 100 (Ct.App.1996) (deferring to agency's interpretation after concluding it was “reasonable”); Ruocco v. S.C. State Bd. of Reg......
  • HAWKINS & GRYPHON, INC. v. Bruno Yacht Sales, Inc.
    • United States
    • South Carolina Court of Appeals
    • 31 Julio 2000
    ...159 (1999) (quoting Aldridge v. Rutledge, 269 S.C. 475, 478, 238 S.E.2d 165, 166 (1977)); see also Koenig v. S.C. Dep't of Pub. Safety, 325 S.C. 400, 404, 480 S.E.2d 98, 99 (Ct.App.1996) ("[Statutory] language must be read in a sense which harmonizes with its subject matter and accords with......
  • State v. Kirby
    • United States
    • South Carolina Court of Appeals
    • 23 Diciembre 1996
    ...not a lesser included offense, Kirby was not entitled to an instruction on this crime. See Murdock v. State, supra (for the circuit court [325 S.C. 400] to have jurisdiction, there must be an indictment, proper waiver of indictment, or the charge must be a lesser included offense of an offe......
  • City of Camden v. Brassell
    • United States
    • South Carolina Court of Appeals
    • 9 Abril 1997
    ...be read in a sense which harmonizes with its subject matter and accords with its general purpose. Koenig v. South Carolina Dep't of Pub. Safety, --- S.C. ----, 480 S.E.2d 98 (Ct.App.1996). Any ambiguity in a statute should be resolved in favor of a just, equitable, and beneficial operation ......
  • 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