Fairchild v. South Carolina Department of Transportation
398 S.C. 90
S.C.2012Background
- This is a motor vehicle collision case arising from a March 1, 2001 I-95 accident in South Carolina involving Fairchild, Palmer, and Palmer Construction Co.; Fairchild sues for negligence and punitive damages after a covenant not to sue is entered with SCDOT and SCDOT is dismissed.
- Fairchild was rear-ended after Mitchell Rabb’s truck blocked the left lane with a trailer, causing Palmer to brake and strike Fairchild’s minivan.
- Jury verdict awarded Fairchild $720,000; Palmer appeals, challenging punitive damages, intervening negligence instructions, and an IME denial.
- Court of Appeals affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for a new trial on punitive damages and intervening-negligence issues; Palmer sought certiorari.
- This Court affirms the Court of Appeals on the punitive-damages submission and intervening-negligence instructions, and finds no abuse of discretion in denying the IME by Dr. Ballenger.
- The Court endorses the proximate-cause framework: statutory violations can support punitive-damages claims if a causal link to the injury is shown, and an IME is governed by Rule 35 with a disinterested examining physician.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Punitive damages submission based on statutory violations | Fairchild argues Palmer acted recklessly; statutory violations support punitive submission. | Palmer contends statutory violations alone are insufficient to submit to the jury. | Punitive damages must be submitted; evidence supports recklessness. |
| Causation from statutory violations for punitive damages | Evidence of speeding and following too closely ties to injury; causation shown. | Statutory violations alone do not prove proximate causation. | There is an inference of proximate causation; jury should decide punitive damages. |
| Intervening negligence of a treating physician | Requested charges on treating-doctor negligence and foreseeability of third-party intervening negligence should be given. | No evidence of negligent treatment; no basis for the requested instruction. | Failure to give the charge was error, prejudicial to Fairchild; remand for new trial on damages. |
| Propriety of denying Rule 35 IME with Dr. Ballenger | Court should allow an impartial IME; Ballenger was neutral. | Ballenger’s prior defense-retainer and opinions create a reasonable objection; court properly denied. | No abuse of discretion; trial court acted within its discretion under Rule 35. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wise v. Broadway, 315 S.C. 273, 433 S.E.2d 857 (S.C. 1993) (statutory violation is evidence of recklessness; jury may decide punitive damages)
- Daniels v. Bernard, 270 S.C. 51, 240 S.E.2d 518 (S.C. 1978) (following too closely; violation per se evidence of recklessness; jury question)
- Field v. Gregory, 230 S.C. 39, 94 S.E.2d 15 (S.C. 1956) (statutory violation as negligence per se; jury determines causation)
- Copeland v. Nabors, 285 S.C. 340, 329 S.E.2d 457 (Ct.App.1985) (evidence of statutory violations supports punitive claim)
- Austin v. Specialty Transp. Seros., Inc., 358 S.C. 298, 594 S.E.2d 867 (Ct.App.2004) (statutory violation can be evidence of recklessness; punitive damages may be warranted)