Prego v. Hobart
| Decision Date | 24 September 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 0571,0571 |
| Citation | 287 S.C. 116,336 S.E.2d 725 |
| Court | South Carolina Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Joseph L. PREGO and Laura E. Prego, Respondents, v. Frederick James HOBART, F & S Wholesale Corporation, Genco Chemicals, Inc., and Sunco Pool Company, Inc., Defendants, of whom Frederick James Hobart and F & S Wholesale Corporation are Appellants. . Heard |
Allen L. Ray and Willard D. Hanna, Conway, for appellant F & S wholesale.
Dwight Hudson, Conway, for appellant Frederick James Hobart.
George M. Hearn of Stevens, Stevens, Thomas, Hearn & Hearn, Loris, for respondents.
This is a tort action. Respondent Laura E. Prego, a minor, sued appellants Frederick James Hobart and F & S Wholesale Corporation seeking damages for injuries sustained when Hobart's automobile collided with the bicycle she was riding. Respondent Joseph E. Prego, Laura's father, sued Hobart and F & S to recover Laura's medical expenses. The actions were consolidated for trial. The jury returned a verdict against Laura on her claim, and found for her father on his claim for her medical expenses. The trial court ordered new trials based on inconsistent verdicts. Hobart and F & S appeal. We affirm.
On April 30, 1980, Laura was struck and seriously injured by an automobile driven by Hobart. At the time, Hobart was employed by F & S, Genco Chemical, Inc., and Sunco Pool Company, Inc.. Laura and Joseph sued Hobart and his three employers. However, before trial, Laura and Joseph dismissed Genco and Sunco by way of covenants not to sue. At the close of their case, Laura and Joseph took a voluntary nonsuit without prejudice as to Hobart by way of a covenant not to sue.
F & S claims the trial court erred by finding a covenant not to sue an employee does not release the employer from liability based on respondeat superior. F & S also charges error in the trial court granting Laura and Joseph a new trial. Finally, F & S argues the trial court should have reduced the verdict for Joseph by $18,500.00, the sum received pursuant to the covenants not to sue with Hobart, Sunco, and Genco.
Hobart claims the trial court erred in (1) ruling on issues and making findings not supported in the record, (2) ruling a formal covenant not to sue was never finalized because of failure to comply with Circuit Court Rule 14, and (3) finding Hobart is an interested party to the appeal on the issue of the viability and enforceability of the covenant.
The dispositive issue is whether the trial court erred in granting Laura and Joseph a new trial. The award or denial of a new trial is within the trial court's discretion subject however, to this court's power to review...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Glenn v. 3M Co.
...'should not be required to guess as to what a jury sought to render.'" Austin, 387 S.C. at 49, 691 S.E.2d at 149 (quoting Prego v. Hobart, 287 S.C. 116, 118, 336 S.E.2d 725, 726 (Ct. App. 1985)). On the other hand, "[i]t is the duty of the court to sustain verdicts when a logical reason for......
-
Austin v. Stokes-Craven Holding Corp., Opinion No. 26784 (S.C. 3/8/2010)
...because the parties and the judge "should not be required to guess as to what a jury sought to render." Prego v. Hobart, 287 S.C. 116, 118, 336 S.E.2d 725, 726 (Ct. App. 1985). However, "[i]t is the duty of the court to sustain verdicts when a logical reason for reconciling them can be foun......
-
Daves v. Cleary
...because the parties and the judge "should not be required to guess as to what the jury sought to render." Prego v. Hobart, 287 S.C. 116, 118, 336 S.E.2d 725, 726 (Ct.App.1985). However, it is the duty of the court to sustain verdicts when a logical reason for reconciling them can be found. ......
-
Craven v. Cunningham
...to grant their motions for a new trial because the jury's verdicts were irreconcilably inconsistent. See Prego v. Hobart, et al., 287 S.C. 116, 336 S.E.2d 725 (Ct.App.1985); Haskins v. Fairfield Electric Cooperative, 283 S.C. 229, 321 S.E.2d 185 (1984). Our view of the evidence does not sup......