Scott v. Greenville Housing Authority
| Decision Date | 17 March 2003 |
| Docket Number | No. 3616.,3616. |
| Court | South Carolina Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Edgar SCOTT, as Parent and Natural Guardian of Zacharias Scott, a Minor Under the Age of Fourteen Years, Appellant, v. GREENVILLE HOUSING AUTHORITY, as Owner and Operator of Pierce Homes, Respondent. |
John Robert Peace, of Greenville, for Appellant.
Merl F. Code and E. Delane Rosemond, of Greenville, for Respondent.
Edgar Scott (Scott), a parent of a three-year-old boy who was severely burned by a hot water heater at a Greenville Housing Authority (GHA) property, appeals the jury verdict in GHA's favor. Scott argues the trial judge erred by refusing to hold GHA admitted liability pursuant to Rule 36, SCRCP. We reverse and remand.
On February 7, 1998, Scott left his son, three-year-old Zacharias Scott, with a babysitter in unit 62-A of Pierce Homes. Pierce Homes is a property owned and operated by GHA. After going to the bathroom, Zacharias attempted to wash his hands. The water was so hot that it caused severe burns to his hands. Zacharias spent ten days in the hospital for his painful burns, which required him to be placed under anesthesia prior to changing his bandages. Over the next two years, Zacharias underwent several surgeries to improve the appearance and range of motion in his hands. Despite the surgeries, Zacharias' hands were severely scarred and he incurred more than $23,000 in medical bills.
On January 4, 2000, Scott, on behalf of Zacharias, sued GHA, alleging GHA was aware the hot water heater was improperly set and that GHA's grossly negligent and reckless acts proximately caused Zacharias' injuries. Scott sought actual and punitive damages. GHA denied liability and asserted that Scott was responsible for the injuries for failing to properly supervise Zacharias and Zacharias assumed the risk of burns by using only hot water to wash his hands.
The parties proceeded with discovery. On November 15, 2000, Scott served GHA with Supplemental Interrogatories and Requests for Production, requesting, among other things, inspection records for the hot water heaters. Thereafter, on November 21, 2000, Scott served GHA with a First Set of Requests for Admission and Supplemental Interrogatories. Request to Admit numbers 3 and 4 asked GHA to admit that it was responsible and liable for all of Zacharias' damages, and that its conduct was the sole proximate cause of any and all damages he suffered. The remaining requests asked GHA to admit that it had a duty to inspect the hot water heater to unit 62-A and whether GHA had performed such an inspection in the year prior to the incident. GHA did not respond to either discovery request within thirty days. Further, GHA only responded to the Supplemental Interrogatories and Request to Produce on February 5, 2001, two days before the matter was scheduled for trial. GHA did not produce the inspection records for the hot water heaters and never responded to the Requests for Admission.
The matter was initially scheduled for trial on February 7, 2001. During the pretrial hearing, Scott moved to have GHA's lack of response to the Requests for Admission deemed an admission of liability and proximate cause of Zacharias' injuries pursuant to Rule 36, SCRCP, so that the trial could continue only as to damages. GHA moved to withdraw the admissions for lack of response, averring Scott was on notice that GHA denied liability in the matter because it moved for summary judgment, it denied liability in its answer, and it pled contributory negligence and assumption of the risk as affirmative defenses. GHA alleged that, because the deemed admission of liability was at the crux of the case, not regarding a tangential fact, the presentation of the merits would be subserved by allowing the admissions to be withdrawn and Scott would suffer no prejudice in having to prove liability.
Scott claimed that, because GHA refused to comply with any of his discovery requests, he did not have the inspection records necessary to prepare his case. Thus, he would be prejudiced and presentation of the merits would not be subserved thereby if GHA were allowed to withdraw their admission of liability. Scott admitted he did not file a motion to compel after GHA failed to respond to the requests for admissions because the issue of liability was deemed admitted under the rule. GHA argued that it had given Scott all the information and records that were available.
The trial court struck GHA's admissions numbers 3 and 4 regarding liability and negligence. The court found Scott made similar allegations in his complaint and that GHA had denied liability and negligence in its answer. The court was concerned that "in every case, then, after issues are joined by pleadings that one or both of the parties will again plead the case by asking for admissions, and we will have a never-ending pleading circumstance by requests for admissions going back and forth between the parties." The court noted that the Tort Claims Act requires gross negligence and an admission of liability does not admit gross negligence. In the written order, the court stated "the requests to admit are superfluous to the issues joined in the pleadings and specifically pled in the Plaintiff's complaint and specifically denied by affirmative defenses in Defendant's answer." The trial court continued the trial to allow Scott to file motions to compel and for GHA to provide Scott with discovery.
Scott filed a motion for reconsideration of the matter. The court denied the motion, holding that "when issues of fact are joined by answer to the complaint denying assertions in the complaint, then no subsequent failure to respond to discovery as permitted by the Rules of this Court may supercede [sic] and negate those ultimate issues of fact in controversy which are presented by the fundamental pleadings of the parties in the cause before the Court." Scott moved to compel production of GHA's records concerning the hot water heater. On March 20, 2001, the trial court ordered the production of records and affidavits regarding the search for records within fourteen days. GHA failed to produce any documents within the prescribed time period. Scott moved for sanctions for failure to produce the records on April 3, 2001.
On April 9, 2001, GHA filed the affidavit of U.S. Sweeney, Public Housing Coordinator, in which Sweeney declared he gave his attorney all of the documents concerning the hot water heaters. Thereafter, GHA provided copies of inspection records for the last two inspections of the hot water heaters on April 1, 1997, and May 12, 1998. GHA failed to provide requested information regarding other inspections or the purchase, manufacture, maintenance, warranty, or any other requested information regarding the hot water heater.
The matter was rescheduled for trial on April 23, 2001. During the trial, Sweeney testified that more records regarding the hot water heaters were available. During the lunch break, Sweeney obtained two file folders containing numerous inspection documents. The trial court granted Scott's motion for a mistrial.
Scott filed a second motion for sanctions for contempt of court and failure to participate in discovery. Because GHA had repeatedly denied the existence of the hot water heater records which were readily available, Scott requested that the portion of GHA's answer in which they denied knowledge of the faulty hot water heaters be struck and that GHA pay Scott's trial preparation costs and attorney's fees. The trial court granted Scott's motion for sanctions as to the trial preparation costs and attorney's fees, but the court denied Scott's request to strike GHA's denial of knowledge regarding the hot water heaters.
The case finally went to trial on May 24, 2001. The jury found for GHA.
In an action at law, on appeal of a case tried by a jury, the appellate court's standard of review extends merely to the correction of errors of law. Townes Assocs., Ltd. v. City of Greenville, 266 S.C. 81, 221 S.E.2d 773 (1976); R & G Constr., Inc. v. Lowcountry Reg'l Transp. Auth., 343 S.C. 424, 540 S.E.2d 113 (Ct.App.2000). We will not disturb the jury's factual findings unless a review of the record discloses there is no evidence which reasonably supports the jury's findings. Townes, 266 S.C. at 85,221 S.E.2d at 775; Brown v. Smalls, 325 S.C. 547, 481 S.E.2d 444 (Ct.App.1997); see also York v. Conway Ford, Inc., 325 S.C. 170, 480 S.E.2d 726 (1997)
(); Cohens v. Atkins, 333 S.C. 345, 509 S.E.2d 286 (Ct.App.1998) ().
Scott contends the trial court abused its discretion in allowing GHA to withdraw its deemed admission because: (1) the court erred in ruling that a defendant cannot make an admission that is contrary to denials contained in the answer; (2) the court ignored the requirements for admissions and denials as set forth in Rule 36(a), SCRCP; (3) the court failed to follow the requirements of Rule 36(b), SCRCP, in evaluating GHA's motion to withdraw the admissions; and (4) the court's ruling is inconsistent with the "form and substance" of Rule 36. We agree.
The trial court in the underlying case based its ruling, in part, on the fact that any admission pursuant to Rule 36(a) would be in direct conflict with GHA's answers in its pleadings and went to the ultimate question of liability.
Whether as previously embodied in prior South Carolina Circuit Court Rule 89 or as currently...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hamilton v. Reg'l Med. Ctr.
...36(b), SCRCP. "Requests for [a]dmissions [a]re just as binding as pleadings on the parties . . . ." 18 Scott v. Greenville Hous. Auth., 353 S.C. 639, 648, 579 S.E.2d 151, 156 (Ct. App. 2003). "The efficacy of these admissions is akin to the doctrine of judicial estoppel: an admission preclu......
-
Sentry Select Ins. Co. v. Maybank Law Firm, LLC
...the May 30, 2018 opinion. We now substitute this opinion to answer the certified question.2 See Scott v. Greenville Housing Authority , 353 S.C. 639, 646, 579 S.E.2d 151, 154 (Ct. App. 2003) (stating "our courts have repeatedly found that failure to respond to requests for admissions deems ......
-
Cedillo v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Idaho
...in our litigation system, some courts presume prejudice when the discovery rules are violated. E.g. , Scott v. Greenville Hous. Auth. , 353 S.C. 639, 579 S.E.2d 151, 158 (App. 2003) ("Discovery is the quintessence of preparation for trial and, when discovery rights are trampled, prejudice m......
-
Coves Darden LLC v. Ibanez
... ... We can find ... no South Carolina authority providing all employees are ... agents of their employers and owe ... See Rules 33 & 36, SCRCP; Scott v ... Greenville Hous. Auth. , 353 S.C. 639, 648, 579 S.E.2d ... ...
-
Enforcement
...to be sure, but they stand a much greater likelihood of success when used in tandem. 1 Scott v. Greenville Housing Authority, 579 S.E.2d 151, 353 S.C. 639 (S.C. App. 2003) delivered this eloquent statement: “When discovery rights are trampled, prejudice must be presumed.” 2 Tolliver v. Fede......
-
Enforcement
...to the party litigant, regardless of whether the fault lies with the party or the attorney. 5 1 Scott v. Greenville Housing Authority, 579 S.E.2d 151, 353 S.C. 639 (S.C. App. 2003) delivered this eloquent statement: “When discovery rights are trampled, prejudice must be presumed.” 2 Tollive......
-
Enforcement
...ubiquitous model for the enforcement of discovery, in general. 4 According to the United States 1 Scott v. Greenville Housing Authority, 579 S.E.2d 151, 353 S.C. 639 (S.C. App. 2003) delivered this eloquent statement: “When discovery rights are trampled, prejudice must be presumed.” 2 Tolli......
-
Enforcement
...him into a bloody pulp. So, if the enemy resists, rejoice and go directly to the next Section. 1 Scott v. Greenville Housing Authority, 579 S.E.2d 151, 353 S.C. 639 (S.C. App. 2003) delivered this eloquent statement: “When discovery rights are trampled, prejudice must be presumed.” 2 Tolliv......