Riley Ex Rel. Estate of Riley v. Ford Motor Co.
414 S.C. 185
| S.C. | 2015Background
- 2007 crash: decedent Benjamin Riley was ejected and killed after his 1998 Ford F‑150 driver's door opened during a collision caused by another driver (Carter).
- Estate sued Carter (settled for $25,000: $20,000 to survival claim, $5,000 to wrongful death) and Ford (claiming defective door‑latch design). Claims against Carter were dismissed after court‑approved settlement.
- At trial against Ford, the Estate presented substantial economic and compelling noneconomic damages evidence but withdrew the survival claim mid‑trial; jury awarded $300,000 on wrongful death and found willful/wanton conduct but declined punitive damages.
- Trial court granted the Estate’s motion for a new trial nisi additur, increasing the judgment by $600,000 (total $900,000); trial court denied Ford’s motion for JNOV and its motion to offset the full $25,000 settlement.
- Court of Appeals reversed: (1) vacated the additur as an improper invasion of the jury’s province, and (2) reallocated the $25,000 settlement (flipped allocation to $5,000 survival/$20,000 wrongful death) and allowed Ford a $20,000 setoff against the wrongful death verdict.
- South Carolina Supreme Court granted certiorari, reversed the Court of Appeals, reinstated the additur, and held Ford entitled only to set off the $5,000 allocated to wrongful death.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of trial court's new trial nisi additur | Trial judge properly exercised discretion; verdict of $300,000 was inadequate given strong economic and noneconomic evidence | Additur improperly invades the jury’s province; any award of noneconomic damages precludes additur | Trial court did not abuse discretion; additur reinstated — presence of some noneconomic damages does not categorically bar additur |
| Reallocation of settling parties’ allocation between survival and wrongful death claims | Court‑approved settlement allocation ($20k survival/$5k wrongful death) is reasonable and binding; reallocating benefits non‑settling defendant improperly | Settling parties’ percentage split is unreasonable; appellate court may reallocate to prevent double recovery | Court of Appeals erred; settling parties’ allocation should stand absent evidence it is not bona fide — Ford gets setoff only of $5,000 |
| Entitlement to setoff by non‑settling defendant | Estate concedes defendant may offset whatever portion of settlement attributable to wrongful death | Ford sought offset of full $25,000 by reassigning $20k to wrongful death | Non‑settling defendant entitled only to credit for the portion actually and reasonably allocated to the wrongful death claim ($5,000) |
| Standard of review for additur | Deferential abuse‑of‑discretion review of trial judge’s motion decision | Appellate reexamination of whether trial ‘invaded jury province’ (de novo) | Abuse‑of‑discretion standard applies; Court of Appeals applied incorrect de novo review and erred |
Key Cases Cited
- Rutland v. South Carolina Dep't of Transportation, 400 S.C. 209, 734 S.E.2d 142 (2012) (discussing non‑settling defendant setoff principles)
- Allstate Ins. Co. v. Durham, 314 S.C. 529, 431 S.E.2d 557 (1993) (standards for new trial based on excessive or inadequate verdicts)
- Bailey v. Peacock, 318 S.C. 13, 455 S.E.2d 690 (1995) (compelling reasons required to invade jury’s province via additur)
- Garner v. Houck, 312 S.C. 481, 435 S.E.2d 847 (1993) (elements of noneconomic damages recoverable in wrongful death actions)
- Rookard v. Atlanta & Charlotte Air Line Ry. Co., 89 S.C. 371, 71 S.E. 992 (1911) (historic recognition of equitable setoff to prevent double recovery)