Rivera v. Newton

Decision Date28 November 2012
Docket Number2012-UP-695
CourtSouth Carolina Court of Appeals
PartiesHazel Jeisel Rivera, Respondent, v. Warren Jared Newton, Newton's Farm, J&J Logging, Inc., and Edgar Rivera, Appellants. Appellate Case No. 2010-168831

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

Heard September 11, 2012

Appeal From Georgetown County Benjamin H. Culbertson, Circuit Court Judge

J Dwight Hudson, of Hudson Law Offices, of Myrtle Beach, for Appellants Warren Jared Newton, Newton's Farm, and J&J Logging, Inc.

Brandon A. Smith, of Turner Padget Graham & Laney, P.A. of Florence, for Appellant Edgar Rivera.

Lawrence Sidney Connor, IV, of Kelaher, Connell & Connor, P.C, of Surfside Beach, for Respondent.

SHORT J.

Warren Jared Newton, Newton's Farm, and J & J Logging, Inc. (collectively, the Newton defendants) and Edgar Rivera appeal the trial court's grant of Jeisel Rivera's new trial motion after the jury returned a verdict in favor of all defendants in this automobile accident case. We affirm.

FACTS

Jeisel and Edgar are siblings. On the night of the accident, Edgar received a telephone call indicating their father had been mugged and was injured. Edgar tried to conceal the call from his sister to avoid upsetting her, but Jeisel overheard and insisted on accompanying Edgar to check on their father. Edgar was eighteen years old, but was not a licensed driver. They got into a car owned by an acquaintance and were followed by a second car driven by a friend, Miguel Fernandez.

At the same time the events were unfolding at the Rivera residence, Warren Newton and his brother were preparing to move a heavy piece of logging equipment across a T-intersection at Pennyroyal Road in Georgetown County, South Carolina. Warren waited ten minutes for traffic to clear. Using a tractor trailer, he pulled straight across, blocking both lanes of the road and beginning to make a three-point turn. He was backing up to straighten the vehicle as Edgar and his companions approached. Edgar did not see the trailer in time to stop, and a collision occurred. Jeisel was ejected from the vehicle and suffered significant injuries.

Jeisel sued the Newton defendants and her brother. At trial, Jeisel testified she insisted that her brother take her to check on their father, and she did not think he could have done anything to avoid the accident. She also testified she was trying to reach her mother on her cell phone while they were driving, and she did not see the truck in time to warn Edgar. Edgar testified he may have been going slightly over the fifty-five miles-per-hour speed limit, and he did not see any warning signs about trucks entering the road as he approached the tractor trailer. He also testified he was familiar with this road and had driven on it before.

Thomas Onions testified as an expert in the plaintiff's case. In his opinion, the headlights of the tractor trailer made it appear as though a car was coming down the road. He testified the lights would have temporarily blinded Edgar, and he would not have been able to see the trailer in time to avoid the accident. Onions stated the Newton brothers could have set up flares or reflective triangles to warn oncoming traffic of their presence, and they created a very dangerous condition in making this maneuver at night on a poorly lit road. He also stated Edgar may have been traveling faster than fifty-five miles per hour, but it was impossible to tell from the information provided. At the conclusion of Onions' testimony, the Newton defendants' attorney read into the record the summation portion of Onions' report, which stated:

It's my opinion that the careless and negligent manner in which Warren, Warren Newton, undertook to move his truck and trailer across the roadway on the night of the accident was the most significant causal factor to the crash event. It is further my opinion that Edgar Rivera also contributed to this accident by failing to slow his vehicle appropriately and continuing to drive into an area visually obstructed by nighttime glare and poor lighting.

Trooper William Surratt responded to the accident scene and testified that according to his diagram of the scene, the tractor trailer's headlights would have been shining in the direction of oncoming traffic. He also stated he did not see warning signs on the road approaching the accident, and no skid marks were at the scene. Surratt testified Edgar did not have his driver's license at the scene.

At the conclusion of Jeisel's case, Edgar moved for a directed verdict based on Jeisel's alleged failure to produce any evidence of his negligence. The court concluded Edgar had testified he was speeding, and he did not see the tractor trailer or warning signs, which could have indicated he had failed to keep a proper lookout. The trial court denied the motion.

Warren Newton testified the tractor trailer had reflective tape on the side and between the tractor and the trailer, there were more than fifty lights, six of which were blinking at the time of the accident. He stated the truck headlights were angled away from the road, facing into the woods, when Edgar approached. He indicated he saw the cars approaching and estimated their speed at sixty-five to seventy miles per hour. Warren testified he flashed his lights, but the cars never slowed down. He further stated there were reflective signs approaching the intersection indicating trucks entered the highway. Warren acknowledged he and his brother did not use flashlights or reflective triangles that were available to them to signal oncoming traffic, and they could have waited until morning to move the truck, an activity he estimated caused them to block the roadway for approximately twenty-five to thirty seconds. Joel Newton testified he was following the tractor trailer in a pick-up truck and had his headlights and emergency flashers on. He testified the tractor trailer's headlights were pointing toward the woods.

Timothy Ward, a witness who lived nearby and approached the scene soon after the accident happened, testified the headlights of the truck were pointed into the woods at about a forty-five-degree angle to the road. He further testified a couple of cars approached from both directions, but they were able to stop and turn around. Ward did not remember seeing lights on the trailer.

Charles Dickinson, an expert for the Newton defendants, opined that Edgar should have seen the tractor trailer if he had been paying attention and not speeding at the time of the accident. According to Dickinson, there was sufficient time, based on his information and his attempt to recreate the conditions the night the accident occurred, for Edgar to see the truck's headlights, readjust his vision, and stop the car before hitting the trailer.

The parties made several motions before the jury was charged. Jeisel moved to strike the Newton defendants' contributory negligence defense. The trial court granted this motion. The trial court also granted Jeisel's request not to charge the jury with unavoidable accident. However, over Jeisel's objection, the trial court allowed the verdict form to go to the jury with the option to find in favor of both defendants. The trial court found that even though Jeisel was not contributorily negligent and the accident was not unavoidable, the jury could find she did not meet her burden of proof in proving one or both defendants were negligent.

The jury deliberated and returned a verdict in favor of the defendants. The trial court granted Jeisel's new trial motion, stating, "The only reasonable inference from the evidence presented at the trial of this case is that one or more of the defendants were at fault in causing the accident that injured the plaintiff." The court further concluded: "[N]o evidence was presented that showed the plaintiff at fault. Therefore, I find and conclude that the court erred in not granting the plaintiff's motion for directed verdict as to liability and in instructing the jury that it could return a verdict in favor of all defendants. See Howard v. Roberson, 376 S.C. 143, 654 S.E.2d 877 [(Ct. App. 2007)]." Edgar and the Newton defendants appealed.

LAW/ANALYSIS
I. Jeisel's Alleged Negligence

The Newton defendants argue numerous alleged errors regarding Jeisel's own negligence, which we combine to address. The Newton defendants argue the trial court erred in the following: (1) granting a new trial because the jury could have imputed Edgar's negligence to Jeisel by virtue of her being the older and only licensed occupant of the vehicle; (2) excluding evidence of Jeisel's failure to keep a proper lookout; (3) failing to charge the jury that a passenger has a duty to exercise due care for his or her own safety; and (4) granting a new trial when Jeisel's own negligence contributed to her injuries. We disagree.

The admission or exclusion of evidence is within the sound discretion of the trial court, and its decision will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion. Fields v. Reg'l Med. Ctr. Orangeburg, 363 S.C. 19, 25, 609 S.E.2d 506, 509 (2005). The trial court is required to charge only principles of law that apply to the issues raised in the pleadings and developed by the evidence at trial. Clark v. Cantrell, 339 S.C. 369, 389, 529 S.E.2d 528, 539 (2000). "Furthermore, the trial court is required to charge only the current and correct law of South Carolina." Id. (citation omitted).

The Newton defendants contend numerous facts could have led the jury to infer Jeisel was negligent. For instance, the Newton defendants argue a reasonable inference arises that Jeisel was not wearing her seatbelt because she was ejected through the windshield of the car. Also, they argue an inference of her negligence could have been made based on her decision to ride...

To continue reading

Request your trial

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