Mills v. S.C. State Ports Auth.
| Decision Date | 15 September 2021 |
| Docket Number | Appellate Case No. 2018-001158,Opinion No. 5862 |
| Citation | 865 S.E.2d 910,435 S.C. 213 |
| Parties | Curtis MILLS, Respondent, v. The SOUTH CAROLINA STATE PORTS AUTHORITY, Appellant. |
| Court | South Carolina Court of Appeals |
Randell Croft Stoney, Jr., and John William Fletcher, of Barnwell Whaley Patterson & Helms, LLC, of Charleston; and Randolph Russell Lowell, of Willoughby & Hoefer, PA, of Charleston, all for Appellant.
Ladson Fishburne Howell, Jr., of Mount Pleasant, for Respondent.
In this personal injury action, the South Carolina State Ports Authority (the Ports Authority) appeals the jury's verdict in favor of Curtis Mills (Mills), arguing the trial court erred by (1) refusing to charge comparative negligence and (2) denying its motion for a new trial absolute or, in the alternative, new trial nisi remittitur. We affirm.
Mills brought this action against the Ports Authority alleging he was injured when its employee, a crane operator at the Wando Terminal port facility, negligently lifted a cargo container from his truck. Mills alleged the crane operator lifted the container while it was still connected to the chassis, which caused the back of the truck to lift along with the container. He claimed that rather than alerting him and safely lowering the container and truck, the crane operator kept them lifted about six to eight feet in the air and shook the container until it came free. Mills alleged this action caused the truck and chassis to fall violently to the ground, throwing him around the cab and injuring him. The Ports Authority alleged comparative negligence as an affirmative defense, arguing Mills was negligent for failing to completely disengage the locking mechanisms that secured the load to his chassis.
At trial, Mills testified he entered the port facility around 3:00 p.m. on October 4, 2012. He testified that prior to checking in at the gate, drivers usually got out and walked around their truck to inspect the chassis and "unlock the box." Mills explained there were four locking mechanisms or "pins" around the box; the front pins slide and the rear pins twist. He testified that when he arrived at the gate, he "walked around the whole truck" and disengaged all four locking pins. A worker at the gate then checked him in and instructed him to proceed to a crane row to offload his box. Mills drove to the designated row and waited for the crane operator. He testified the crane operator—Greg Spanbauer—"clamped down hard on the box" and when Spanbauer lifted it, the chassis and the truck came about four or six feet off the ground. Mills explained that when a crane operator lifts a box and notices the chassis start to come up, he is supposed to lower the box down, blow the horn, and allow the driver to get out and disengage the pins. Mills averred Spanbauer saw the chassis lift off the ground. He stated Spanbauer seemed to "shake the box off," the box separated, and the chassis and tires of the truck came back down "hard." Mills stated that after the box broke free, he drove his truck forward so the box did not fall back onto the truck. He then reported the incident to driver's assistance and the Ports Authority police.
Mills testified he felt pain in his neck and back and he went to the hospital after the accident. He explained the hospital referred him to Dr. Poletti for treatment and that he later treated with Dr. Zgleszewski.1 Mills testified he incurred medical expenses of about $50,000. He stated Dr. Poletti discussed surgery with him and told him there was a "50/50 chance" that he "would walk out of surgery." Mills testified Dr. Zgleszewski administered spinal injections
for pain. He stated the injections provided some relief but the pain would eventually return and was "still there." Mills testified he was "still in pain" at the time of the 2018 trial and although he took pain medication, "it[ wa]s going to be a lifetime ... pain."
Mills explained Dr. Zgleszewski released him for "light duty" work in February 2014, and although he had returned to work, he was not able to maintain a regular schedule because he had to stop frequently to stretch. Mills stated he could no longer engage in certain activities he participated in prior to the accident, such as playing basketball and running with his children. He recalled he missed about nine weeks of work and lost about $12,000 in income during that time.
Dr. Zgleszewski testified to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, Mills suffered a herniated disk
and annular tear, which were most probably caused by the accident. He opined the treatment he and Dr. Poletti provided was reasonable and necessary. Dr. Zgleszewski stated he last treated Mills on February 24, 2014, and on that date he believed Mills could return to work and his pain was at a low level. He stated he then placed Mills on a medical management plan.
Spanbauer, whose deposition testimony was read into the record at trial, testified he lifted Mills's box and it came up about "two feet in the back." Spanbauer stated that during the lift, the back pins were unlocked but the front pins were engaged, which caused the container to rise off the chassis at an angle of about two feet. He explained that once he realized the front pins were engaged, Mills drove off, causing the truck to "bounce up and down." Spanbauer testified that the hydraulics of the crane would not allow a crane operator to "shake" a box. He noted drivers sometimes kept their pins engaged intentionally and would try to disengage them by sliding out during the lift instead. However, he stated it would be safe to lift a box off a chassis with the pins engaged if the driver told him ahead of time because he would be able to lift up the box and let them drive off.
Barney Washington, an equipment operator and employee of the Ports Authority, explained that when a crane operator lifts a container that is still attached to the chassis, the operator would notice this because the chassis or the wheels would rise up. He explained that if this occurred or if the crane operator saw the chassis twist during the lift, the operator is supposed to lower the box back to the ground and signal to the driver. Likewise, Jarod Brown, another employee of the Ports Authority, testified crane operators would know "pretty much immediately" if any resistance occurred during a lift and were "trained to stop and lower the container and have the driver check the equipment." Washington stated the crane operators did not "jiggle" containers and it would be dangerous to do so. Washington and Brown both averred that for all four corners of a chassis to be lifted with a box, all four pins would have to be engaged. Washington testified the driver was responsible for ensuring the pins were disengaged and the box was safe to lift. He agreed that after a driver disengaged his pins at the gate, the pins would sometimes jostle back into place during the drive from the gate to the crane row. Brown stated some drivers left their front pins engaged for the lift intentionally because it allowed them to pick up another load after the lift without having to disengage the forward pins.
Damion Solomon, another truck driver, testified he witnessed Spanbauer lift the container from Mills's truck. He stated he saw the chassis, the box, and the back of truck lift up off the ground high enough for him to walk under it. He explained Spanbauer then twisted the boom, causing the box to come free and the chassis and everything else to fall back to the ground. Solomon explained that when drivers arrived at the terminal gate, they unlocked all four pins on their truck. He testified that in his experience, the pins frequently "jostle[d] back into place" when a driver traveled from the gate to the cranes. Solomon noted some drivers disengaged their pins at the gate and others waited until they arrived at the crane to do so. Although he agreed drivers could check the pins a second time upon arriving at the container handler, he stated that that no drivers actually did this.
The Ports Authority moved for a directed verdict, which the trial court denied. Mills objected to the Ports Authority's request to charge comparative negligence, arguing no standard required drivers to check the pins again immediately before the lift if the driver had already disengaged the pins at the terminal gate. The Ports Authority argued it was the driver's responsibility to make certain that the pins were disengaged, and Mills failed to do so. The trial court declined to charge comparative negligence.
The Ports Authority objected to Mills's request to charge lost wages, arguing such damages were speculative because Mills presented no tax returns or evidence of his salary, and the trial court agreed. However, the trial court inadvertently charged the jury that, in determining damages, it could consider "loss of time and income which resulted from the impairment of the ability to work and earn a livelihood" and could include in its estimate the "loss of the capacity for work." The trial court asked if the parties had any objections to the charges as read. The Ports Authority renewed its argument regarding comparative negligence but did not otherwise object. The jury returned a verdict for Mills and awarded him $616,710.07 in actual damages.
The Ports Authority filed several post-trial motions: it moved for a new trial based on the trial court's refusal to charge comparative negligence and requested a new trial under the thirteenth juror doctrine, a new trial absolute, and a new trial nisi remittitur. The Ports Authority also argued the South Carolina Tort Claims Act2 limited Mills's recovery to $300,000, and Mills agreed. The trial court reduced the award to $300,000 but denied the Ports Authority's remaining motions. This appeal followed.
1. Did the trial court err in refusing the Ports Authority's request to instruct the jury regarding comparative negligence?
2. Did...
To continue reading
Request your trial