Miller v. Doe, No. 24005

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
Writing for the CourtFINNEY; HARWELL
Citation441 S.E.2d 319,312 S.C. 444
PartiesJanette MILLER, Respondent, v. John DOE, Appellant. . Heard
Docket NumberNo. 24005
Decision Date05 January 1994

Page 319

441 S.E.2d 319
312 S.C. 444
Janette MILLER, Respondent,
v.
John DOE, Appellant.
No. 24005.
Supreme Court of South Carolina.
Heard Jan. 5, 1994.
Decided Feb. 7, 1994.

Page 320

[312 S.C. 445] Charles E. Carpenter, Jr., R. Davis Howser, and Deborah L. Harrison, all of Richardson, Plowden, Grier & Howser, Columbia, for appellant.

Frank A. Barton, of J. Marvin Mullis, Columbia, for respondent.

FINNEY, Justice.

This is an appeal of a personal injury action to determine liability and damages for injuries arising out of an automobile accident involving an unknown motorist.

FACTS

The respondent was a passenger in a vehicle owned and operated by Mary Miller. The two were involved in a non-contact accident with an unknown vehicle operated by an unidentified driver. Respondent claims that the unknown driver failed to dim his lights thus temporarily blinding Mary Miller and causing her to lose control of her car and run off of the road. Respondent and Mary were the only witnesses to the accident.

Respondent sought recovery for her injuries sustained in the accident from Mary's insurer, State Auto Property and Casualty Insurance Company. The parties arrived at an [312 S.C. 446] agreement whereby the insurer would pay respondent $7,500 if it was determined that she had a right of action or recovery under S.C.Code Ann. § 38-77-170 (1989). Section 38-77-170 provides in pertinent part that:

If the owner or operator of any motor vehicle which causes bodily injury or property damage to the insured is unknown, there is no right of action or recovery under the uninsured motorist provision, unless:

(1) the insured or someone in his behalf has reported the accident to some appropriate police authority within a reasonable time, under all the circumstances, after its occurrence;

(2) the injury or damage was caused by physical contact with the unknown vehicle, or the accident must have been witnessed by someone other than the owner or operator of the insured vehicle; provided however, the witness must sign an affidavit attesting to the truth of the facts of the accident contained in the affidavit;

(3) the insured was not negligent in failing to determine the identity of the other vehicle and the driver of the other vehicle at the time of the accident.

(Emphasis added).

The parties agreed to submit the sole legal issue to the trial court on Stipulations of Fact and memoranda. The trial court found that respondent had a right to recover uninsured motorist coverage benefits...

To continue reading

Request your trial
39 practice notes
  • Bradley v. Doe, No. 4274.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • July 6, 2007
    ...Mun. Ass'n of S.C. v. AT&T Communications of S. States, Inc., 361 S.C. 576, 580, 606 S.E.2d 468, 470 (2004); see also Miller v. Doe, 312 S.C. 444, 447, 441 S.E.2d 319, 321 (1994) ("In determining the meaning of a statute, the terms used therein must be taken in their ordinary and p......
  • Peake v. Dept. of Motor Vehicles, No. 4313.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • November 27, 2007
    ...of South Carolina v. AT&T Commc'n of Southern States, Inc., 361 S.C. 576, 580, 606 S.E.2d 468, 470 (2004); see also Miller v. Doe, 312 S.C. 444, 447, 441 S.E.2d 319, 321 (1994) ("In determining the meaning of a statute, the terms used therein must be taken in their ordinary and pop......
  • Smith v. Tiffany, Appellate Case No. 2015-001159
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • April 26, 2017
    ...statutory provision is ambiguous. Paschal v. State Election Comm'n , 317 S.C. 434, 436, 454 S.E.2d 890, 892 (1995) (citing Miller v. Doe, 312 S.C. 444, 441 S.E.2d 319 (1994) ); see also Tilley v. Pacesetter Corp. , 355 S.C. 361, 373, 585 S.E.2d 292, 298 (2003) (observing that unless a statu......
  • Wright v. PRG Real Estate Mgmt., Inc., Appellate Case No. 2013–002157.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • July 15, 2015
    ...of the individual case based upon a showing of negligence constituting the proximate cause of the loss.” 312 S.C. at 443 n. 1, 441 S.E.2d at 319 n. 1 (emphasis added). Wright relies on this language from Cramer I. She contends her case presents “particular circumstances” that give rise to a......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
39 cases
  • Bradley v. Doe, No. 4274.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • July 6, 2007
    ...Mun. Ass'n of S.C. v. AT&T Communications of S. States, Inc., 361 S.C. 576, 580, 606 S.E.2d 468, 470 (2004); see also Miller v. Doe, 312 S.C. 444, 447, 441 S.E.2d 319, 321 (1994) ("In determining the meaning of a statute, the terms used therein must be taken in their ordinary and p......
  • Peake v. Dept. of Motor Vehicles, No. 4313.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • November 27, 2007
    ...of South Carolina v. AT&T Commc'n of Southern States, Inc., 361 S.C. 576, 580, 606 S.E.2d 468, 470 (2004); see also Miller v. Doe, 312 S.C. 444, 447, 441 S.E.2d 319, 321 (1994) ("In determining the meaning of a statute, the terms used therein must be taken in their ordinary and pop......
  • Smith v. Tiffany, Appellate Case No. 2015-001159
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • April 26, 2017
    ...statutory provision is ambiguous. Paschal v. State Election Comm'n , 317 S.C. 434, 436, 454 S.E.2d 890, 892 (1995) (citing Miller v. Doe, 312 S.C. 444, 441 S.E.2d 319 (1994) ); see also Tilley v. Pacesetter Corp. , 355 S.C. 361, 373, 585 S.E.2d 292, 298 (2003) (observing that unless a statu......
  • Wright v. PRG Real Estate Mgmt., Inc., Appellate Case No. 2013–002157.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • July 15, 2015
    ...of the individual case based upon a showing of negligence constituting the proximate cause of the loss.” 312 S.C. at 443 n. 1, 441 S.E.2d at 319 n. 1 (emphasis added). Wright relies on this language from Cramer I. She contends her case presents “particular circumstances” that give rise to a......
  • 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