Rhodes v. Lawrence

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Rhodes v. Lawrence

302 S.E.2d 343, 279 S.C. 96, 1983 S.C. LEXIS 278

CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina

DecidedApril 20, 1983

Docket21906

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 302 S.E.2d 343 (Rhodes v. Lawrence) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of South Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Rhodes v. Lawrence, 302 S.E.2d 343, 279 S.C. 96, 1983 S.C. LEXIS 278 (S.C. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam:

Plaintiff appeals from a directed verdict granted to defendant on the question of punitive damages. Judgment for actual damages was entered upon a jury verdict for the plaintiff, but appeal is also taken from this award on the grounds of inadequacy. We reverse the directed verdict and remand for a new trial of all issues.

This suit arises from an automobile accident occurring as the parties were proceeding along a two lane highway, both driving in the same direction with the defendant at some distance behind the plaintiff. When the collision occurred, plaintiff was making a left turn and defendant was attempting to pass. Both automobiles were thus on the left-hand side of the roadway at the moment of impact.

The cause of the wreck was a closely contested issue. Testimony was offered as to alleged statutory violations by the defendant and the trial judge charged the jury with regard to these statutory provisions. In these circumstances, a jury question as to punitive damages was clearly presented given the well settled rule that a showing of statutory violation can be evidence of recklessness and willfulness. Daniels v. Bernard, 270 S. C. 51, 55, 240 S. E. (2d) 518; Jarvis v. Green, 257 S. C. 558, 561, 186 S. E. (2d) 765; Still v. Blake, 255 S. C. 95, 102, 177 S. E. (2d) 469; West v. Sowell, 237 S. C. 641, 647, 118 S. E. *98 (2d) 692. The trial judge, therefore, erroneously disposed of the issue of punitive damages as a matter of law.

Judgment is reversed and the cause of action is remanded for new trial.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam:

Plaintiff appeals from a directed verdict granted to defendant on the question of punitive damages. Judgment for actual damages was entered upon a jury verdict for the plaintiff, but appeal is also taken from this award on the grounds of inadequacy. We reverse the directed verdict and remand for a new trial of all issues.

This suit arises from an automobile accident occurring as the parties were proceeding along a two lane highway, both driving in the same direction with the defendant at some distance behind the plaintiff. When the collision occurred, plaintiff was making a left turn and defendant was attempting to pass. Both automobiles were thus on the left-hand side of the roadway at the moment of impact.

The cause of the wreck was a closely contested issue. Testimony was offered as to alleged statutory violations by the defendant and the trial judge charged the jury with regard to these statutory provisions. In these circumstances, a jury question as to punitive damages was clearly presented given the well settled rule that a showing of statutory violation can be evidence of recklessness and willfulness. Daniels v. Bernard, 270 S. C. 51, 55, 240 S. E. (2d) 518; Jarvis v. Green, 257 S. C. 558, 561, 186 S. E. (2d) 765; Still v. Blake, 255 S. C. 95, 102, 177 S. E. (2d) 469; West v. Sowell, 237 S. C. 641, 647, 118 S. E. *98 (2d) 692. The trial judge, therefore, erroneously disposed of the issue of punitive damages as a matter of law.

Judgment is reversed and the cause of action is remanded for new trial.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

302 S.E.2d 343, 279 S.C. 96, 1983 S.C. LEXIS 278, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rhodes-v-lawrence-sc-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack