 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Clark v. South Carolina Department of Public Safety11/12/2002
ore, apply the gross negligence standard agreed to by the parties.
Gross negligence has been defined a number of ways. Our supreme court recently stated " ross negligence is the intentional, conscious failure to do something which is incumbent upon one to do or the doing of a thing intentionally that one ought not to do." "It is the failure to exercise even the slightest care." It has also been defined as "the absence of care that is necessary under the circumstances."
The existence of gross negligence is ordinarily a mixed question of both law and fact. "When the evidence supports but one reasonable inference, it is solely a question of law for the court[;] otherwise it is an issue best resolved by the jury."
"In ruling on motions for directed verdict and JNOV, the trial court is required to view the evidence and the inferences that reasonably can be drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motions and to deny the motions where either the evidence yields more than one inference or its inference is in doubt." "The trial court can only be reversed by this Court when there is no evidence to support the ruling below."
As noted above, the jury submitted a statement at trial regarding its verdict. The statement suggested the jury found the Department grossly negligent because of the failure of supervisors to monitor the pursuit and the failure to call it off. In its brief, the Department argues the statement served the same purpose as a special verdict. The Department also argues the trial court erred in denying its motions for a directed verdict and JNOV because the allegations regarding the lack of supervision only gave rise to "derivative" or "cumulative" liability and do not independently support the jury's verdict in the absence of gross negligence by the trooper.
We hold, however, the note did not transform the verdict into a special verdict and there was evidence to warrant submission of the question of the Department's liability to the jury. The statement does not exclude a finding of gross negligence on the part of Bradley and does not constitute part of the verdict. The transcript indicates the trial court made no mention of the note in publishing the verdict, nor did it otherwise treat the note as part of the verdict. As such, we find the note was not a special verdict that limited the ground for the jury's finding to the acts and omissions of the Department's supervisors.
Moreover, although the Department attempts to base its lack of liability solely on the actions of the trooper, the issue in this case is whether there was any evidence of gross negligence by the Department, through the acts and omissions of its employees, which consists of both the troopers and the supervisors. We agree with the trial court that the liability of the supervisors referred to in this case is distinguishable from cases alleging vicarious liability on the part of a supervisor. Rather, there were two sets of duties involved. First, the trooper, as the pursuing officer, had a "duty to drive with due regard for the safety of all persons." Clark's expert in high-speed police chases, Samuel Killman, testified the standard for a pursuing trooper is that he must continue to evaluate the need to apprehend the suspect versus the danger of the pursuit to the public's safety and try to balance those competing concerns. Secondly, Killman testified the supervisors at the Department had an independent duty to monitor the acts of the troopers and take any actions deemed appropriate, including termination of the chase. He based this duty on both the Department's own internal policy and on general standards of conduct recognized by law
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.
|
|