Raino v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co.
Decision Date | 05 June 1992 |
Docket Number | No. 23703,23703 |
Citation | Raino v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co., 309 S.C. 255, 422 S.E.2d 98 (S.C. 1992) |
Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
Parties | Cynthia RAINO, Respondent, v. GOODYEAR TIRE AND RUBBER COMPANY, Lee Tire Company, Stokes Honda of Beaufort, Inc., and Barnard Tire Company, Defendants, Of Whom Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company and Lee Tire Company are Appellants. . Heard |
Charles E. Carpenter, Jr., and Deborah L. Harrison, both of Richardson, Plowden, Grier & Howser, Columbia, and Robert H. Hood and Carl E. Pierce, II, both of Hood Law Firm, Charleston, for appellants.
John E. Parker, of Peters, Murdaugh, Parker, Eltzroth & Detrick, Hampton, and A. Parker Barnes, of Barnes & Smith, P.A., Beaufort, for respondent.
William C. Anderson, Jr., Hampton, for defendantBarnard Tire Company.
Stephen P. Hughes, of Howell, Gibson & Hughes, P.A., Beaufort, for defendantStokes Honda of Beaufort, Inc.
This is a strict liability case.AppellantsGoodyear Tire and Rubber Company(Goodyear) and Lee Tire Company(Lee) allege that the trial judge erred in ruling evidence relating to alcohol was inadmissible and in failing to grant Goodyear's motions for dismissal.We affirm.
RespondentCynthia Raino(Raino) was seriously injured in a single car accident on July 25, 1987, at 9:00 a.m. outside Hardeeville.On August 9, 1988, Raino brought this action in Hampton County against Goodyear, Lee, Stokes Honda of Beaufort, Inc.(Stokes), and Barnard Tire Company(Barnard) under the theories of negligence, warranty, and strict liability.Raino alleged the left rear tire was defective and caused her accident.At trial, Raino pursued only the issue of strict liability.
Raino purchased the car from Stokes on August 16, 1986.Stokes bought the four GT Performer tires on the car from Barnard on July 25, 1986.The allegedly defective tire was manufactured by Kelly Springfield Tire (Kelly) and sold by Lee.Raino also alleged that Goodyear, which owns the entire stock of Kelly and Lee should be liable for any defect in the tire.Goodyear moved to be dismissed several times before and during the trial on the ground that it did not manufacture the tire.The trial judge denied these motions.The parties then consented to the trial judge deciding whether Goodyear manufactured the tire rather than submitting this issue to the jury.The trial judge ruled that Goodyear was the manufacturer of the tires.
The defense attempted to introduce several items of evidence concerning Raino's consumption of alcohol, which they contended was the actual proximate cause of the accident.The trial judge ruled the evidence was inadmissible.The jury returned a $750,000.00 verdict for Raino against all the defendants.Indemnification was awarded against Goodyear and Lee to Stokes and Barnard.Goodyear and Lee now appeal.
The elements of a cause of action for strict liability are 1) the product was not reasonably fit or safe for its intended use; and 2) the defect was the direct and efficient cause of the plaintiff's injury.Livingston v. Noland Corp., 293 S.C. 521, 362 S.E.2d 16(1987).At trial, appellants attempted to introduce several items into evidence concerning Raino's alleged consumption of alcohol contending the proximate cause of the accident was Raino's driving under the influence and speeding.The trial judge ruled the evidence was inadmissible.We agree.
After the accident, Raino was taken to Savannah's Memorial Medical Center (Memorial) for treatment.Appellants contend that a blood sample was taken from Raino which showed that at 10:50 a.m. she had a .10 blood alcohol content.Appellants offered the test result to support their argument that the proximate cause of the accident was Raino's driving under the influence.Even if we find the test result is relevant, the proper chain of custody must be established for it to be admissible.The trial judge ruled the evidence was inadmissible because the appellants did not establish any chain of evidence or custody.We agree.
Both sides agree that a party offering blood alcohol test results is required to establish a chain of evidence "as far as practicable."State v. Williams, 297 S.C. 290, 376 S.E.2d 773(1989); Benton v. Pellum;232 S.C. 26, 100 S.E.2d 534(1957).In Benton, this Court stated that Id., 100 S.E.2d at 537(citations omitted).
In Benton, the technician who drew the sample testified that he drew the blood, placed it in a vial, labeled it, and wrapped it for mailing to a lab in Charleston.The chemist in Charleston testified he tested the blood in the labeled vial.There was, however, no evidence as to who mailed the vial to Charleston.This Court held the chain of custody was insufficient.Appellants contend that this case is distinguishable because here the sample was tested within twenty minutes in a lab two hundred feet from the trauma room and "all of the persons who handled the blood in the trauma protocol are medically qualified...."Regardless of the distance to the lab, appellants do not know who handled the blood.There are not mere gaps in the chain.Appellants failed to establish the proper chain of custody.
The admission of...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 7-day Trial
-
Silverman v. Campbell
...Constitutional provisions, it is well-settled that the denial of summary judgment is not directly appealable, Ballenger v. Bowen, 313 S.C. 476, 443 S.E.2d 379 (1994), nor is it appealable after final judgment. e.g.,
Raino v. Goodyear Tire, 309 S.C. 255, 422 S.E.2d 98 (1992). We do not address the denial of appellants' summary judgment Appellants next contend the trial judge abused his discretion in deciding the declaratory judgment question, noting that under the Declaratory Judgment... -
Waring v. Johnson
...portion of Waring's pain was caused by her pre-existing conditions, there is no question that the accident aggravated or accelerated those conditions, resulting in pain where there previously had been none. See
Raino v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 309 S.C. 255, 259, 422 S.E.2d 98, 100 (1992)("The defendant takes the plaintiff as he is found and the plaintiff is entitled to recover damages resulting from the aggravation of a pre-existing Finally, Johnson claims that even if the trial... -
SOUTH CAROLINA DEPT. v. Cochran
...presented no direct evidence as to how those specific blood samples were processed. We find that Ivey's testimony does not establish the practicable chain of custody of mother's blood samples that is required by the Williams, Pellum, and
Rainoline of cases. This Court is unable to affirm the family court when key evidence of mother's alleged pervasive drug addiction has not been CONCLUSION We REVERSE the trial court and REMAND this case with leave to open theevidence must not leave it to conjecture as to who had it and what was done with it between the taking and the analysis. Benton v. Pellum, 232 S.C. 26, 33-34, 100 S.E.2d 534, 537 (1957) (cited in Raino v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co., 309 S.C. 255, 258, 422 S.E.2d 98, 99-100 (1992)). In this case, DSS took a telephonic deposition of Steven Ivey ("Ivey"), an employee of LabCorp, which is the laboratory that tested the blood samples.4 Ivey testified generally as to who would... -
Ballenger v. Bowen
...(1993); 4 Am.Jur.2d Appeal and Error, § 104 (1962 & Supp.1993); 15 A.L.R.3d 899 (1967 & Supp.1993). Further, this Court has held that the denial of summary judgment is not reviewable even in an appeal from final judgment.
Raino v. Goodyear Tire, 309 S.C. 255, 422 S.E.2d 98 (1992); Holloman v. McAllister, 289 S.C. 183, 345 S.E.2d 728 A denial of a motion for summary judgment decides nothing about the merits of the case, but simply decides the case should proceed to trial. Parker Oil...
-
§ 13-13 Damages - Pre-existing Condition
...or added damages may be recovered. See Camp Mfg. Co. v. Beck, 283 F. 705 (4th Cir. 1922); Vaughan v. Southern Bakeries Co., 247 F. Supp. 782 (D.S.C. 1965); Eubanks v. Piedmont Natural Gas Co., 198 F. Supp. 522 (D.S.C. 1961); Raino v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co.,
309 S.C. 255, 422 S.E.2d 98 (1992); Watson v. Wilkinson Trucking Co., 244 S.C. 217, 136 S.E.2d 286 (1964)(plaintiff is entitled to recover all damages proximately... -
B. Injuries Arising from Breaches of Common-law Duties Owed by a Possessor of Land and from Negligence: Actual Damages for Personal Injury
...note 1, supra, at 563.[11] Newman v. Brown, 228 S.C. 472, 90 S.E.2d 649 (1955); see generally Anderson, note 1, supra, at 139.[12] Raino v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.,
309 S.C. 255, 259, 422 S.E.2d 98, 100 (1992) (citing Watson v. Wilkinson Trucking Co., 244 S.C. 217, 136 S.E.2d 286 (1964)).[13] Stevens v. Allen, 342 S.C. 47, 53, 536 S.E.2d 663, 665 n.5 (2000) (quoting Young v. W. Union Tel. Co., 65 S.C.... -
B. Causation
...S.E.2d 565 (Ct. App. 2005), and Palsgraf, 162 N.E. 99, discussed supra notes 673-674, 678 and accompanying text and infra note 685 and accompanying text.[682] Raino v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.,
309 S.C. 255, 422 S.E.2d 98 (1992); Watson v. Wilkinson Trucking Co., 244 S.C. 217, 136 S.E.2d 286 (1964); Burnett v. Family Kingdom, 387 S.C. 183, 193, 691 S.E.2d 170, 175-76 (Ct. App. 2010); Mims, as Admr. v. Florence... -
B. Defect
...(expert testimony); Hilton Head Beach & Tennis Resort v. Sea Cabin Corp., 305 S.C. 517, 409 S.E.2d 434 (Ct. App. 1991) (late production in response to request for production).[323] See, e.g., Raine v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.,
309 S.C. 255, 422 S.E.2d 98 (1992) (contributory negligence based on alleged intoxication of plaintiff; defendant failed to establish who handled blood alcohol sample taken from plaintiff).[324] S.C. CODE ANN. § 39-8-60(B)...