Rhodes v. Winn-Dixie Greenville, Inc.
| Decision Date | 05 June 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 18662,WINN-DIXIE,18662 |
| Citation | 249 S.C. 526,155 S.E.2d 308 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | Myrtle RHODES, Respondent, v.GREENVILLE, INC., Appellant. Arthur RHODES, Respondent, v.GREENVILLE, INC., Appellant. |
Fulmer, Barnes, Berry & Austin, Columbia, for appellant.
Isadore Lourie, Henry Hammer, Columbia, for respondent.
Myrtle Rhodes fell on the floor and was injured while shopping in the store of Winn-Dixie Greenville, Inc. She has sued Winn-Dixie in tort for personal injuries and in a separate suit her husband, Arthur Rhodes, has sued for medical bills and for loss of consortium. The two cases were consolidated for trial. The jury found a verdict in favor of the plaintiff wife, Myrtle Rhodes, and a verdict against the plaintiff husband, Arthur Rhodes. For simplicity, the Myrtle Rhodes' case will be referred to as the wife's case; Arthur Rhodes' case will be referred to as the husband's case; and Winn-Dixie will be referred to as the store.
After the verdicts were rendered, the trial judge held that the verdicts were inconsistent; allowed the wife's verdict to stand, and ordered a new trial as to the husband's case.
In the husband's case the store appeals the ground that a new trial was erroneously granted.
In the wife's case the store appeals, somewhat conditionally, on the ground that, 'If the verdicts were so inconsistent as to necessitate a new trial in the husband's case, was it not error for the Trial Court to refuse to grant a new trial in the wife's case?'
The judge held and it must be conceded that the verdicts are inconsistent. It would have been appropriate for the trial judge to charge the jury that both cases must be decided for the plaintiffs or both for the defendant, and/or would have been appropriate for the trial judge to refuse to receive the inconsistent verdicts and recommit the cases to the jury under additional instructions. 89 C.J.S. Trial § 567b, p. 337.
It is undisputed that the husband assumed medical bills, which he was obligated to pay under the law. If the wife is entitled to a verdict, which the jury gave her, thereby finding liability, the husband should recover, too. On the other hand, if there is no liability, neither should recover. The store, by withdrawing its exception relating to refusal of the judge to grant a directed verdict or an order Non obstante veredicto, concedes that there is at least a jury issue involved in both cases and we think the same inescapable.
The sole question for determination by this court is: Where two verdicts are irreconcilably inconsistent, is a new trial required in both cases?
There is a split of authority in the United States on this question. Some courts hold that where verdicts are absolutely irreconcilable, a new trial is required on both claims. Other courts attempt to analyze the two verdicts and determine what course of action should be pursued relative to each of the cases involved.
A verdict should speak the truth. Obviously, one of these verdicts is not speaking the truth because either both plaintiffs should have won or both plaintiffs should have lost, and the evidence is susceptible of no other reasonable inference. In one case or the other there was no fair trial. The jury refused to go by the law and the evidence in one case. Both plaintiffs sustained injuries: the wife went to the hospital; the husband paid the bill. The right to recover depended upon the same alleged delict. The jury could not properly have found that the husband was not damaged because his testimony relative to at least some medical bills is not in dispute.
The jury could not, under the law, do what it did in this case. The court should not be required to speculate as to which verdict was valid and which was invalid. At best a determination by the judge as to which case should be tried over and which allowed to stand could involve...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Glenn v. 3M Co.
...when a logical reason for reconciling them can be found." Id. at 49-50, 691 S.E.2d at 149 (quoting Rhodes v. Winn-Dixie Greenville, Inc., 249 S.C. 526, 530, 155 S.E.2d 308, 310 (1967)). Here, the general verdict form, in its entirety, clearly shows the jury's intent to hold Fisher liable fo......
-
Austin v. Stokes-Craven Holding Corp., Opinion No. 26784 (S.C. 3/8/2010)
...is the duty of the court to sustain verdicts when a logical reason for reconciling them can be found." Rhodes v. Winn-Dixie Greenville, Inc., 249 S.C. 526, 530, 155 S.E.2d 308, 310 (1967). "To recover in an action under the UTPA, the plaintiff must show: (1) the defendant engaged in an unfa......
-
Camden v. Hilton
...an appellate court must uphold a jury verdict if it is possible to reconcile its various features. Rhodes v. Winn-Dixie Greenville, Inc., 249 S.C. 526, 530, 155 S.E.2d 308, 310 (1967); Dowd v. Imperial Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc., 298 S.C. 439, 441, 381 S.E.2d 212, 213 (Ct.App.1989). Furthermor......
-
Stevens v. Allen
...law, and that the proper remedy, when'an objection is raised, is to re-submit the matter to the jury. See Rhodes v. Winn-Dixie Greenville, Inc., 249 S.C. 526, 155 S.E.2d 308 (1967) (holding it is appropriate for trial judge to refuse to receive inconsistent verdicts; judge should recommit m......