*1 Affirmed. Gregory J., C. JJ.,
Littlejohn, Chandler, concur. J., not participating.
Harwell, TONEY, Jr., Keysha Toney Hazel Administrator of the Estate of Lashawn (Deceased), Respondent, v. SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, Appellant.
(327 (2d) 322) S. E.
Supreme Court *3 Atty. Gen. T. Medlock, Travis Atty. Asst. Emory Gen. J. Smith, Jr., Dove, III, Nelson, Rhett P. Mullins, of Grier & Scarborough, Columbia, appellant. for Louthian, Columbia,
Herbert W. respondent. for May 16, Writ Issued 1984. 15,
Heard Oct. 1984. 7,
Decided Feb. 1985. Chief Justice:
Littlejohn, granted We a writ of certiorari to review the decision of Appeals opinion the Court of in this case. The of the Court of Appeals reported 484, (2d) at 279 S. E. (1983) C. 309 S. is upon quashed. based an error of law and is Keysha Toney, grade student, a second passenger was a (Bus A). a debarked, school bus Soon after she a second (Bus B) passed injuring bus Bus A Keysha the child. days injuries. died four later as a result of the recovering After the non-fault death by (l)(a) 59-67-710, subsection of S. C. Code Ann. § the re- spondent seeking this compen- commenced action additional based on the (l)(b) §of 59-67-710 subsection sation under Bus B. negligent operation of coverage. Subsec- provides two forms of
Section 59-67-710 by injured or killed coverage person a (l)(a) provides tion recovery if is not operation of a school negligent (l)(a). under subsection available accident, not an the decedent was of the
At the time B. was a Bus A or Bus She “occupant” of either pedestrian. sub 59-67-710(2)(f), no-fault benefits of §
Under are school children who (l)(a) are extended to section crossing public down, while a or run over “run struck point of ... leaving school bus at the ... a highway while crossing in of was the course unloading.” the decedent Since A, respondent was getting off Bus public highway after benefits under subsection the non-fault properly allowed to collect (1) Corp., Surety 223 S. C. (a). Farmer v. National (1953). 74 E. S. of subsection 59-67-710(2)(e), the benefits
Under who school children are (1)(a) also extended to are down, by a school bus.” Since or run over “run struck B, also covered under by Bus she was the decedent was struck in the acci (1)(a) on Bus B’s involvement based America, Company North Insurance dent. Coats v. S. C. (1)(a) coverages provided person cannot re and one separate and distinct are Company v. Insurance under both. Coats cover Surety Corp., 225 America, supra; v. National Collins North statutory language (1954).The coverage any quite specific. (l)(b) provides Subsection “[f]or qualified person, person who for benefits other than ... a *4 lived, she could not paragraph (a).” the decedent under Had (1)(b) since she an action under subsection have maintained (1)(a) buses. by as to both covered subsec- right no to sue under Since the decedent had injuries, respondent has no (l)(b) for her the tion right an action under corresponding to maintain such Act, Layne §Ann. 15-5-90. v. Interna- the Survival S. C. Code Workers, 271 247 Electrical S. C. tional Brotherhood of Appeals’ (1978). E. the Court of S. To the extent may respondent the may indicate that opinion be read to negli- the Act based on damages under the Survival recover B, in error. it is gent operation subsec- an action under respondent maintain can the Nor Wrongful by the damages provided the tion to obtain Act, -60. Under the Act, Ann. to §§ C. Code 15-51-10 Death S. to may maintain a suit representative personal a decedent’s injuries personal caused statutory beneficiaries’ recover the pecuniary injuries include These decedent’s death. the grief, feelings, suffering, wounded loss, mental shock Smith v. society companionship. sorrow, and loss of E. Wells, S. C. 64, 282 Education, S. E. 277S. C.
In Nance v. State Board of language of subsection the (1981),this Court held that (2d) 848 (1 recovery of the enough allow )(b) was broad to Act Wrongful Death compensate decedent’s damages to the However, not consider the that decision did beneficiaries. the not effective at 215 of 1977which was impact of Act No. in that case. of the death time injuries changed kind of No. 215 the of Act
Section “personal (l)(b) from under subsection recoverable injuries.” the term “bodily It is clear that injuries” to “personal the term much narrower than “bodily injuries” is Indemnity Company, 245 v. American injuries.” Sheffield (1965); v. Nationwide (2d) 787 Sossamon 552, 135 S. Company, 243 S. C. Insurance Mutural opinion, the kinds of In our 827. (1964); J. S. Insurance 45 C. Act are not Wrongful Death the under injuries recoverable Therefore, the injuries.” “bodily term within the included seeking such an action may not maintain respondent (l)(b). damages based on may not maintain respondent the Having that concluded Wrongful the Act or Survival either the an action operation of either school negligent on the Death Act based under subsection recovered damages can be bus, no actual the demurrer. sustained have judge should (l)(b). The trial opinion that also of Additionally, we are recov- separate to allow intended was not § 59-67-710 in an accident. involved ery on each based up recovery to single provides a Instead, § 59-67-710 the number regardless of injury death or limits *5 406 Therefore, cannot be this action involved.
of school buses (l)(a) have al- subsection benefits under maintained since ready been recovered. Appeals is Court of
Accordingly, opinion of the the entry court for the to the trial quashed, the case is remanded Department of Carolina judgment in favor of the South Education.
Quashed and remanded.
Gregory JJ., concur. Harwell, Ness, Justice, dissenting: respectfully
I dissent. involved, Toney is are I that as two buses would hold provided to an “occu- no fault benefit entitled to collect the pursue under the may benefits pant” “A” and also of Bus injured by negli- the separate coverage for persons gent operation “B.” of Bus student, passenger a
Keysha Toney, grade was a second debarked, a second (Bus “A”). after she bus Soon a school striking killing “B”) passed “A” (Bus Bus school bus death bene- Respondent already received no fault has child. in- (l)(a). This action appellant subsection fits from seeking negligent death benefits under suit volves second (l)(b). child, injures or kills a school school bus When one (l)(b), (l)(a) or subsection are available under applicable, both. No school child can be but not whichever non-occupant single bus at the occupant of a an and a America, Company North time. Coats v. Insurance same 331, (2d) (1974); Weston v. Nationwide 204 S. E. 262 S. C. Company, 237 S. C. Mutual Insurance Surety Corporation, 225 S. C. (1961);Collins v. National Surety Corpora- (1954); v. Farmer National tion, 74 S. E. involved.
In the instant case two school buses were types coverage on provides two of insurance statute — one which are articulated state-owned school buses occupant, to the other is benefit is to benefit the school general public. Subsection non-occupant, of the a member (l)(a) provides bodily injury benefits for death or suffered regard negli- occupant of a school bus without to fault or an occupant departing “A” gence. Decedent was an when Respondent properly the accident occurred. recovered death *6 policy from the insurance on Bus “A” under this section. (l)(b) provides bodily
Subsection benefits for death or injury negligent operation of a because of school bus for a person person riding on the other than a school bus or a person qualified (l)(a). for benefits under subsection Dece- riding qualify “B”. dent was not Nor did she Bus (l)(a) Bus benefits under subsection “B’s”insurance cover- age. Greyhound the second Had bus been rather than a bus, respondent unquestionably would have been al- coverage lowed to recover under the first school no fault bus’s Greyhound’s liability coverage negligence if and under were proven. interpret providing
I 59-67-710of the 1976Code as paragraph (l)(a) right a no fault to collect the death benefit (l)(b) negligence benefit, a claim based on for the death $15,000 damages. each not to exceed actual respondent I hold is entitled to recover under sub- would policy provided negli- “B’s” section insurance gence established. J., concurs with the dissent.
Chandler, BROWN, STATE, Respondent, v. Roscoe James Petitioner. The BRAXTON, STATE, Respondent, Appellant. v. Michael The BRAXTON, Brown, STATE, Respondent, v. Michael T. Roscoe J. is, Vaughn, Vaughn Appellant. whom Mark Mark
(326 (2d) 410) E.S. Supreme Court