Stephens v. Draffin, No. 24632
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina |
| Writing for the Court | FINNEY |
| Citation | 327 S.C. 1,488 S.E.2d 307 |
| Parties | William Paul STEPHENS, Appellant, v. David S. DRAFFIN, M.D., Respondent. Myrna STEPHENS, Appellant, v. David S. DRAFFIN, M.D., Respondent. . Heard |
| Docket Number | No. 24632 |
| Decision Date | 22 May 1996 |
Page 307
v.
David S. DRAFFIN, M.D., Respondent.
Myrna STEPHENS, Appellant,
v.
David S. DRAFFIN, M.D., Respondent.
Decided June 9, 1997.
[327 S.C. 2] E. Vernon F. Glenn, Mt. Pleasant; Philip A. Berlinsky, North Charleston; and Kermit S. King, Columbia, for appellants.
M. Dawes Cooke, Jr. and Eleanor D. Washburn, Charleston, for respondent.
FINNEY, Chief Justice:
This is an appeal from jury verdicts for the respondent doctor in a trial which consolidated
Page 308
appellant William Stephens[327 S.C. 3] ' (Stephens') medical malpractice claim and his wife appellant Myrna Stephens' (Wife's) action for loss of consortium. Stephens and Wife allege the trial judge committed error in charging the jury both contributory and comparative negligence, contending he should have charged comparative negligence only. We agree it was error to charge both doctrines but hold only contributory negligence should have been charged. Since the error in the charge was to appellants' benefit, and since we can determine from the special verdict in Stephens' case that there was no prejudice, we affirm.Respondent was Stephens' doctor from December 1985 until May 1992. The gravamen of Stephens' negligence theory was that respondent deviated from medical standards by prescribing for Stephens an inappropriate narcotic drug (Percocette) to which Stephens became addicted, and then by aiding and abetting that addiction by continuing to prescribe the drug in quantities which greatly exceeded the amount required by a person who was not abusing the medication.
The evidence showed that by 1986 respondent had begun to warn Stephens that his use of Percocette was excessive, and to warn him of its addictive potential. In 1987 and again in 1988 Stephens admitted himself to rehabilitation facilities in an attempt to reduce his dependence on the narcotics. 1 These hospitalizations afforded him only temporary and incomplete relief, and Stephens continued to seek prescriptions from respondent, who continued to dispense them along with warnings about addiction. The evidence also showed that for years before Stephens became respondent's patient, he suffered from great anxiety about his health, and repeatedly sought hospital care for what he perceived to be heart attacks, but which usually proved to be angina or indigestion. During the years that Stephens was under respondent's care, however, the number of times he unnecessarily sought emergency room care was dramatically reduced, as was his anxiety level.
[327 S.C. 4] Respondent admits there was evidence of negligence on his part, and Stephens admits the issue of his own negligence 2 was properly before the jury. Effective July 1, 1991, this Court abrogated the doctrine of contributory negligence "for all causes of action arising on or after" that date in favor of comparative negligence. Nelson v. Concrete Supply Co., 303 S.C. 243, 399 S.E.2d 783 (1991)(emphasis added). Contributory negligence constitutes a complete bar to the plaintiff's recovery while comparative negligence...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Moosally v. WW Norton & Co., Inc., No. 3769.
...against another.'" Id. at 96, 180 S.E. at 792 (emphasis supplied). Cornelius is consistent with our later decision in Stephens v. Draffin, 327 S.C. 1, 488 S.E.2d 307 (1997), where we held "our cases use the verbs `arise' and `accrue' interchangeably when discussing the issue of the juncture......
-
George v. Empire Fire and Marine Ins. Co., No. 2906.
...resulting from Judge Dennis's ruling inasmuch as we hold herein that reformation was improvidently granted. See Stephens v. Draffin, 327 S.C. 1, 488 S.E.2d 307 (1997) (error without prejudice does not warrant II. Policy Interpretation A. Effect of Invalid Exclusion in 1993-94 Policy Judge W......
-
Stevens v. Allen, No. 25179.
...of an action and the recovery of at least nominal damages, regardless of whether any actual damage has been sustained. Stephens v. Draffin, 327 S.C. 1, 488 S.E.2d 307 (1997); Livingston v. Sims, 197 S.C. 458, 15 S.E.2d 770 (1941) (citing 1 C.J.S., Actions, § 8(h)); McDaniel v. Terrell, 1 No......
-
Tilley v. Pacesetter Corp., No. 25697.
...find that it is unnecessary to address whether new § 37-10-105, as applied to Pacesetter, violates Due Process. In Stephens v. Draffin, 327 S.C. 1, 488 S.E.2d 307 (1997), this Court discussed the impact of its earlier decision in Nelson v. Concrete Supply Co., 303 S.C. 243, 399 S.E.2d 783 (......
-
Moosally v. WW Norton & Co., Inc., No. 3769.
...against another.'" Id. at 96, 180 S.E. at 792 (emphasis supplied). Cornelius is consistent with our later decision in Stephens v. Draffin, 327 S.C. 1, 488 S.E.2d 307 (1997), where we held "our cases use the verbs `arise' and `accrue' interchangeably when discussing the issue of the juncture......
-
George v. Empire Fire and Marine Ins. Co., No. 2906.
...resulting from Judge Dennis's ruling inasmuch as we hold herein that reformation was improvidently granted. See Stephens v. Draffin, 327 S.C. 1, 488 S.E.2d 307 (1997) (error without prejudice does not warrant II. Policy Interpretation A. Effect of Invalid Exclusion in 1993-94 Policy Judge W......
-
Stevens v. Allen, No. 25179.
...of an action and the recovery of at least nominal damages, regardless of whether any actual damage has been sustained. Stephens v. Draffin, 327 S.C. 1, 488 S.E.2d 307 (1997); Livingston v. Sims, 197 S.C. 458, 15 S.E.2d 770 (1941) (citing 1 C.J.S., Actions, § 8(h)); McDaniel v. Terrell, 1 No......
-
Tilley v. Pacesetter Corp., No. 25697.
...find that it is unnecessary to address whether new § 37-10-105, as applied to Pacesetter, violates Due Process. In Stephens v. Draffin, 327 S.C. 1, 488 S.E.2d 307 (1997), this Court discussed the impact of its earlier decision in Nelson v. Concrete Supply Co., 303 S.C. 243, 399 S.E.2d 783 (......