 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Clark v. South Carolina Department of Public Safety11/12/2002
the dispatchers he was initiating a pursuit. Vaughn could not recall, however, whether he had actually monitored any portion of the pursuit. Trooper Lonnie Plyler, the supervisor for the second shift, did not monitor the pursuit because he was handling the administration of a breathalyzer examination. Plyler was unaware who the third-shift supervisor was for that evening, but Plyler did go to the scene of the accident after Justice radioed for a supervisor.
Clark brought this action under the South Carolina Tort Claims Act against the Department and Johnson for the death of his daughter. Johnson went into default and was unable to contest his liability. At trial, the jury returned a verdict for Clark for $3.75 million in total damages against both Johnson and the Department on his wrongful death claim. The jury apportioned 80 per cent fault to Johnson and 20 per cent to the Department, resulting in a verdict against Johnson for $3.0 million and against the Department for $750,000. The trial court reduced the verdict against the Department to $250,000 in accordance with the limit imposed by the Tort Claims Act.
Although it is not clear from the transcript, at some point the jury submitted a note regarding its verdict, which reads as follows:
The Vehicle Foot Pursuit Policy of SCDPS [the Department] dictates supervision of all pursuits. During this pursuit no supervisors were present or notified until after the pursuit was ended. It is our decision that this designates gross neglect on the behalf of SCDPS.
The Department thereafter moved for JNOV, new trial absolute, and new trial nisi remittitur. The trial court denied the motions. The Department appeals.
LAW/ANALYSIS
I. Denial of DV and JNOV Motions
The Department first contends Clark was unable to sustain his burden of proof regarding its liability for Amy's death. Specifically, the Department argues the trial court erred in denying its motions for a directed verdict and for JNOV because Clark failed to demonstrate Bradley was grossly negligent in initiating, continuing, or failing to terminate the pursuit of Johnson. The Department also asserts the jury's note constituted a special verdict indicating the jury did not find the trooper was grossly negligent, and there could be no "derivative" or "cumulative" liability by the supervisor in the absence of gross negligence by the trooper. The Department argues it is, therefore, entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
The Tort Claims Act renders state agencies and governmental entities "liable for their torts in the same manner and to the same extent as a private individual under like circumstances, subject to the limitations" and exemptions contained within the Act.
In addition to the Tort Claims Act, section 56-5-760 of the South Carolina Code addresses the civil liability of operators of authorized emergency vehicles. This statute authorizes police officers using a vehicle equipped with a siren and flashing light to exceed the maximum speed limit and to disregard certain traffic regulations during a police pursuit. The statute further provides, however, that these provisions "do not relieve the driver of an authorized emergency vehicle from the duty to drive with due regard for the safety of all persons."
At trial, the parties agreed the applicable standard for liability in this case was gross negligence, and the trial court charged the jury that it was to determine whether the defendants' gross negligence proximately caused injury to the plaintiff. Because no issue is raised on appeal regarding the standard for culpability, it becomes the law of the case and we will, theref
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 South Carolina DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|