920 S.E.2d 283
S.C. Ct. App.2025Background
- Meswaet Abel, on behalf of her deceased fiancé Zerihun Wolde and their children, sued Lack's Beach Service after Wolde drowned at Myrtle Beach in 2018.
- Lack's Beach Service was contracted by the City of Myrtle Beach to provide lifeguards and beach concessions under a franchise agreement, which required lifeguard training and certain staffing ratios.
- At the time of the drowning, the closest lifeguard stand (L-21) was unmanned because the lifeguard was on lunch break; neighboring lifeguards allegedly did not respond, and bystanders had to intervene.
- Evidence showed Lack's lifeguards were expected to simultaneously vend merchandise and perform lifeguarding duties—a practice critiqued as unsafe by national life-saving standards.
- The jury awarded approximately $20 million in damages against Lack's, finding negligence and recklessness, including actual, wrongful death, and punitive damages. Lack’s post-trial motions for JNOV and a new trial were denied; it appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether dual-role (lifeguard + vending) breached standard of care | Dual roles violated industry standard and were unsafe, per expert and USLA testimony. | Dual roles allowed by City contract and statute; standard of care set by agreement. | Dual roles not expressly approved; sufficient evidence breach of care. |
| Sufficiency of evidence for breach/proximate cause | Sufficient evidence that negligence led to drowning; lack of trained, present guard was direct cause. | No evidence lifeguards' actions were proximate cause; insufficient proof of breach/training. | Evidence supported causation; jury could find for plaintiff. |
| Whether pain and suffering (survival claim) was supported | Decedent experienced conscious pain and suffering, shown by eyewitness and bystander testimony. | Only "pre-impact fear" shown, not active suffering; expert needed for drowning process. | Jury could find evidence of conscious pain and suffering; no expert needed. |
| Propriety/constitutionality of punitive damages | Lack’s acted recklessly/willfully in violating safety standards; punitive justified and proportionate. | No reckless conduct proven; punitive damages excessive given negative net worth. | Evidence and ratio support award; no constitutional violation. |
Key Cases Cited
- RFT Mgmt. Co. v. Tinsley & Adams L.L.P., 399 S.C. 322 (standard for directed verdict and JNOV motions)
- Doe v. Am. Red Cross Blood Servs., S.C. Region, 297 S.C. 430 (professional negligence, standard of care)
- Madison ex rel. Bryant v. Babcock Ctr., Inc., 371 S.C. 123 (proximate cause as jury question)
- Solanki v. Wal-Mart Store No. 2806, 410 S.C. 229 (recklessness and gross negligence defined)
- Welch v. Epstein, 342 S.C. 279 (trial court discretion over damages awards, punitive standards)
- State v. Hamilton, 344 S.C. 344 (standard for admissibility and prejudice of evidence)
- Mims v. Florence Cnty. Ambulance Serv. Comm’n, 296 S.C. 4 (jury role in awarding pain and suffering)
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408 (constitutional limits on punitive damages)
- BMW of N. Am., Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559 (punitive damages due process guideposts)