781 S.E.2d 534
S.C.2015Background
- Collision at a passive railroad crossing (no lights/gates) on Hill Road (Yemassee, SC) on Feb 3, 2004; 12-year-old Lillian severely injured; suit by guardian ad litem against CSX and SCDOT for negligence.
- Petitioner alleged CSX failed to sound the horn timely (statutory 1,500 ft) and failed to clear vegetation; alleged SCDOT improperly placed stop sign/stop line and failed to inspect.
- CSX’s counsel admitted the engineer did not sound the horn at the required distance; event recorder showed horn at 1,161 ft. CSX stipulated to the recorder data’s accuracy.
- Trial: judge denied Petitioner’s directed verdict; Petitioner presented rebuttal evidence but did not renew the directed verdict motion at close of all evidence; jury returned a special verdict finding neither defendant negligent.
- Petitioner moved for JNOV and for a new trial (challenging admission/exclusion of evidence and multiple jury charges); Court of Appeals affirmed in part; South Carolina Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Renewing directed verdict / JNOV | Petitioner: Rule 50(b) should allow JNOV where plaintiff presents rebuttal evidence without renewing directed verdict; CSX admitted statutory breach so partial directed verdict warranted | Defendants: Rule 50(b) requires renewal after all evidence; failure to renew waives right to JNOV | Held: Petitioner waived JNOV by not renewing directed verdict after rebuttal; Rule 50(b) requires motion after all evidence; affirm Court of Appeals on waiver. |
| Jury refusal to give petitioner’s proposed negligence instructions (duties of railroad re: vegetation / horn) | Petitioner: Requested instructions clarified railroad’s heightened duties where vegetation obstructs view and timing duties | Defendants: Trial charge already covered mutual duties and degree of care; requested wording unnecessary/redundant | Held: No error — judge’s charge substantially covered the requested points; no prejudice shown. |
| Statutory charges re: driver stop duties (sections 56-5-2330, 56-5-2740) and effect on causation / intervening cause | Petitioner: Charging general stop-sign statutes (instead of railroad-specific stop statute) was inapplicable and could have confused jury into finding motorist negligent per se, superseding defendants’ negligence | Defendants: Statutes were proper to inform jury on stopping duties | Held: Error — charging those statutes was irrelevant/conflicting with railroad-specific statute and prejudicial; jury may have been confused; warrants new trial. |
| Charging criminal DUI statute without statutory presumption of non-impairment (.05) | Petitioner: Judge should have charged presumption that BAC ≤ .05 is not under influence (Colvin’s BAC .018), omission prejudiced Petitioner | Defendants: Charging DUI statute without presumption was permissible | Held: Prejudicial error — omission of statutory presumption could lead jury to infer impairment and excuse defendants; reversal warranted. |
| "It is always train time" charge (allocation of duties) | Petitioner: Phrase improperly shifts higher duty to motorists and conflicts with mutual-duty principle | Defendants: Historical language; permissibly warned jury of danger | Held: Error — phrase is dicta from old cases and conflicts with mutual-duty precedent; likely prejudicial. |
| Discretionary immunity for SCDOT and signage/statute charges | Petitioner: SCDOT lacked evidence to support discretionary-immunity charge and some signage statutes were inapplicable | Defendants: SCDOT presented evidence of weighed professional judgments and compliance with MUTCD; signage statutes were relevant | Held: Court found SCDOT did present evidence supporting discretionary immunity and that signage statutes were properly charged; these holdings were affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- RFT Mgmt. Co. v. Tinsley & Adams, L.L.P., 399 S.C. 322, 732 S.E.2d 166 (S.C. 2012) (failure to renew directed verdict at close of all evidence waives JNOV)
- Wright v. Craft, 372 S.C. 1, 640 S.E.2d 486 (S.C.) (strict application of Rule 50 renewal requirement)
- Klavens v. Siegel, 256 Md. 476, 260 A.2d 637 (Md. 1970) (plaintiff offering rebuttal evidence waives initial directed verdict motion unless renewed)
- Fairchild v. S.C. Dep’t of Transp., 398 S.C. 90, 727 S.E.2d 407 (S.C. 2012) (violation of applicable statute can constitute negligence per se)
- Chisolm v. Seaboard Air Line Ry., 121 S.C. 394, 114 S.E. 500 (S.C. 1922) (railroad and traveler owe mutual duty of lookout and care at crossings)
- Pike v. S.C. Dep’t of Transp., 343 S.C. 224, 540 S.E.2d 87 (S.C. 2000) (elements for governmental discretionary immunity: conscious choice among alternatives and use of accepted professional standards)
- Anderson v. Short, 323 S.C. 522, 476 S.E.2d 475 (S.C. 1996) (where multiple grounds support a ruling, unchallenged grounds can sustain decision)
- Gause v. Smithers, 403 S.C. 140, 742 S.E.2d 644 (S.C. 2013) (standards for superseding/intervening cause breaking causal chain)