Dillon v. Frazer

Supreme Court of South Carolina
678 S.E.2d 251 (2009)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A new trial absolute on damages must be granted when a jury's verdict is grossly inadequate, shocks the conscience of the court, and is irreconcilably inconsistent with the undisputed evidence of damages, especially when there is evidence the jury was motivated by improper considerations.

Facts:

Noel Dillon and Neil Frazer, both residents of Ontario, Canada, were co-employees of Massiv Die-Form, a Canadian company.
The two men were in Greenville, South Carolina, for a work assignment.
Their employer, Massiv, paid for their hotel and a rental car for their use during the assignment.
Frazer was the only employee authorized to drive the rental car.
While driving with Dillon as a passenger, Frazer ran a stop sign, causing an accident.
Dillon sustained severe injuries, including ten fractured ribs, a fractured sternum, a fractured clavicle, a fractured thumb, and a punctured lung.
Frazer admitted he was negligent and liable for the accident.

Procedural Posture:

Noel Dillon sued Neil Frazer in a South Carolina trial court for personal injuries arising from a car accident.
Frazer admitted liability, and a trial was held solely on the question of damages.
The jury returned a verdict awarding Dillon $6,000.
Dillon filed a post-trial motion for a new trial nisi additur or, in the alternative, a new trial absolute on damages.
The trial court denied the motion for a new trial absolute but granted additur, increasing the total damages to $21,000.
Dillon, the plaintiff, appealed the trial court's refusal to grant a new trial absolute to the South Carolina Supreme Court.
Frazer, the defendant, cross-appealed, arguing the trial court erred in refusing to apply Ontario's workers' compensation law.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Is a new trial absolute on damages required when a jury's award is substantially less than the undisputed evidence of damages and the jury's questions during deliberations suggest it was motivated by improper considerations?

Opinions:

Majority - Justice Pleicones

Yes, a new trial absolute on damages is required. The jury's verdict of $6,000 is grossly inadequate and irreconcilably inconsistent with the undisputed evidence of over $30,000 in damages for medical bills, transportation, and lost wages. This vast disparity shocks the conscience of the court and indicates the verdict was not based on the evidence but on improper considerations. The jury’s questions during deliberations about whether a third party paid Dillon’s medical bills, despite being instructed not to consider such matters, confirm that the verdict was actuated by improper motivation. Therefore, the trial court abused its discretion by not granting a new trial absolute.

Analysis:

This decision reaffirms the judiciary's role in policing jury verdicts that deviate radically from the evidence presented at trial. It solidifies the 'shocks the conscience' standard as the benchmark for granting a new trial absolute due to an inadequate verdict. The court's reliance on the jury's questions as evidence of improper motive provides a clear signal that deliberations are not entirely immune from scrutiny when the resulting verdict is grossly inconsistent with the facts. Furthermore, the court's handling of the choice-of-law issue serves as a stark procedural reminder that foreign law must be affirmatively pleaded, or the argument will be waived, reinforcing the default application of lex loci delicti in South Carolina tort cases.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Dillon v. Frazer (2009)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"

Premium Feature