734 S.E.2d 142
S.C.2012Background
- Rutland's wife Tiffanie Rutland died after the Blazer rolled over and partially ejected her.
- Rresulting issue: whether pre-impact fear is a cognizable damages element in a survival action; current record shows no evidence of conscious pain and suffering.
- Rutland settled with the at-fault driver’s insurer for $80,000 and with GM for $275,000; total settlements plus Bishop’s $30,000 totaled $305,000, allocated between conscious pain and suffering and wrongful death if a survival claim existed.
- Judge Goodstein approved the settlement allocations noting potential survival evidence but Rutland never filed a survival claim against any party.
- In trial against SCDOT for wrongful death, the jury awarded $300,000; SCDOT sought set-off against the settlement allocations, arguing no evidence of conscious pain and suffering for a survival action.
- The circuit court reduced the settlement allocation, reallocating the portion attributed to survival to wrongful death, effectively zeroing Rutland’s surviving-damages component.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether pre-impact fear is a cognizable survival damages element | Rutland argues pre-impact fear should be compensable in a survival action. | SCDOT and related parties contend no support in SC law for pre-impact fear as damages. | No evidence of conscious pain or suffering; open question remains. |
| Whether the settlement proceeds could be equitably reallocated between wrongful death and survival actions | Rutland contends reallocation was improper or unnecessary because evidence of pre-impact fear was insufficient. | SCDOT argues reallocation to wrongful death prevents double recovery and follows precedent. | Equitable reallocation upheld; settlement funds reallocated to wrongful death. |
Key Cases Cited
- Welch v. Epstein, 342 S.C. 279 (Ct.App.2000) (setoff and allocation of settlement among actions)
- Lin v. McDonnell Douglas Corp., 574 F.Supp. 1407 (S.D.N.Y. 1983) (premortem mental distress damages addressed)
- Nelson v. Dolan, 434 N.W.2d 25 (Neb. 1989) (premortem mental anguish damages discussed)
- Solomon v. Warren, 540 F.2d 777 (5th Cir.1976) (pre-impact distress recognized in some contexts)
- Hoskins v. King, 676 F.Supp.2d 441 (D.S.C.2009) (district court notes lack of direct SC support for pre-impact fear)
- Truesdale v. S.C. Highway Dept., 213 S.E.2d 740 (Ct. App. 1975) (general principle that one compensation suffices for injury)
- McDermott, Inc. v. AmClyde, 511 U.S. 202 (1994) (equitable considerations in settlements and setoffs)
- Chester v. S.C. Dept. of Public Safety, 388 S.C. 343 (2010) (settlement, choice of defendant, and equity considerations)