Supreme Court of South Carolina
Neal Berberich, Appellant v. Naomi M. Jack, Respondent
April 4, 2011392 S.C. 278
Summary
The South Carolina Supreme Court held that under the state's comparative negligence scheme, ordinary negligence may be compared with reckless, willful, or wanton conduct, and that trial courts must give jury instructions on the definitions of these heightened forms of wrongdoing when requested. Accordingly, the Court reversed the lower court's judgment and remanded for a new trial.
Holding
- Whether, under South Carolina's comparative negligence system, ordinary negligence may be compared to reckless, willful, or wanton conduct.. All forms of conduct amounting to negligence, including reckless, willful, or wanton conduct, may be compared and offset against any other negligence in the comparative negligence analysis.
- Whether the trial court erred in refusing to give the jury definitions of recklessness, willfulness, and wantonness and in refusing to instruct that ordinary negligence is not a defense to such conduct.. The trial court's refusal to define those concepts was an abuse of discretion; a trial court should instruct the jury on the definitions of these various forms of negligence whenever requested, even if punitive damages are not at issue.
Docket 26955
Cited authorities
- S.C. Code Ann. § 15-1-300