757 S.E.2d 422
S.C. Ct. App.2014Background
- Estate sues Ford for design defect of door-latch system after Riley’s ejection and death in a 1998 Ford F-150 crash.
- Estate settled with at-fault driver Carter for $25,000 ($20,000 to survival, $5,000 to wrongful death).
- Trial: survival claim withdrawn; wrongful death claim against Ford submitted to jury, verdict $300,000 in actual damages.
- Ford moved for JNOV; trial court denied.
- Estate moved for new trial nisi additur; court granted additur increasing verdict to $900,000.
- Court ultimately AFFIRMED denial of JNOV, REVERSED setoff denial, REVERSED additur and reinstated $300,000 with a $20,000 setoff.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Estate proved a design defect and a reasonable alternative design under Branham | Estate satisfied Branham by showing rod-to-cable alternative design as feasible | Estate failed Branham—no specific design flaw proven and no crashworthy alternative | JNOV denial affirmed; Branham met with feasible alternative design evidence |
| Whether setoff for Carter settlement should be granted and how to allocate | Ford entitled only to $5,000 setoff for wrongful death; $20,000 allocation to survival supported by evidence | Ford entitled to setoff; allocation to survival/damages should reflect evidence of conscious pain and suffering | Setoff awarded at $20,000 (80% wrongful death, 20% survival) after reallocating settlement funds; Ford entitled to some setoff |
| Whether trial court properly awarded nisi additur to $900,000 | Additur warranted by compelling evidence of noneconomic and economic losses | Additur violated jury’s constitutional right to trial by jury as to damages | Additur reversed; reinstated jury verdict of $300,000 |
Key Cases Cited
- Branham v. Ford Motor Co., 390 S.C. 203 (S.C. 2010) (design defect; feasible alternative design required under risk-utility test)
- Rutland v. S.C. Dep’t of Transp., 400 S.C. 209 (S.C. 2012) (setoff reallocations when settlement allocations are unreasonable)
- Graves v. CAS Med. Sys., Inc., 401 S.C. 63 (S.C. 2012) (design-defect evidence; distinguish Graves from the current case)
- Scott v. Porter, 340 S.C. 158 (Ct.App. 2000) (noneconomic damages; jury discretion for damages)
- Krepps v. Ausen, 324 S.C. 597 (Ct.App. 1996) (noneconomic damages and trial court additur considerations)
- Pee Dee Stores, Inc. v. Doyle, 381 S.C. 234 (Ct.App. 2009) (settlement allocations; contract-like view of settlements)
- Welch v. Epstein, 342 S.C. 279 (Ct.App. 2000) (settlements; not bound by terms when not party to settlement)
- Mims Amusement Co. v. S.C. Law Enforcement Div., 366 S.C. 141 (S.C. 2005) (right to jury trial preserved; foundational principle)