Opinion · Supreme Court of South Carolina
Nelson v. Concrete Supply Company
Nelson v. Concrete Supply Co., 303 S. Ct. 243 (1991)
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Supreme Court of South Carolina
- Jurisdiction
- South Carolina
- Date
- 1991-01-07
- Topic
- bankruptcy
How later courts describe this case
- stating that under comparative negligence "a plaintiff in a negligence action may recover damages if his or her negligence is not greater than that of the defendant"
- determining that comparative negligence is the "more equitable doctrine” and abolishing the “long-standing rule of contributory negligence” with reference to the lengthy discussion in Langley v. Boyter, 284 S.C. 162, 325 S.E.2d 550 (S.C.Ct.App.1984)
- adopting the doctrine of comparative negligence and holding plaintiff can recover in South Carolina when his or her negligence is not greater than the defendant’s negligence
- finding the plaintiff, who ran into the back of a tractor-trailer, was not entitled to recover damages because there was no negligence on the part of the truck driver as a matter of law
- "[A] plaintiff in a negligence action may recover damages if his or her negligence is not greater than that of the defendant."
- “If there is more than one defendant, the plaintiffs negligence shall be compared to the combined negligence of all defendants.”
- in negligence cases filed on or after July 1,1991, a plaintiff may recover damages only if his or her negligence is not greater than that of the defendant
- “[T]he history of legislative action in the various states which have adopted the doctrine [of comparative negligence] by statute reveals that comprehensive statutes are not usually adopted.”
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed Nelson v. Concrete Supply Company. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
- Cited by
- 96 opinions
Appellant commenced this negligence action to recover damages for the death of Gladys Nelson. Mrs. Nelson was killed when the vehicle she was driving ran into the back of an eighteen-wheel tractor trailer truck owned by respondent Concrete Supply Company and driven by respondent John Clinkscales. The truck was on an entrance ramp to the interstate highway waiting to merge with oncoming traffic when the collision occurred. The jury returned a verdict for respondents. We affirm.
At trial, appellant requested a jury charge on the law of comparative negligence which the trial judge refused. In arguing for reversal, appellant asks this Court to overrule Freer v. Cameron, 37 S.C.L. (4 Rich.) 228 (1851), and subsequent precedent upholding our long-standing rule of contributory negligence. Having determined comparative negligence is the more equitable doctrine, we now join the vast majority of our sister jurisdictions and adopt it as the law of South Carolina to the extent set forth below. For an exhaustive analytical discussion of the history and merits of comparative negligence, we refer the bench and bar to the opinion of Chief Judge Sanders in Langley v. Boyter, 284 S.C. 162, 325 S.E. (2d) 550 (Ct. App. 1984).
*245 For all causes of action arising on or after July 1, 1991, 1 a plaintiff in a negligence action may recover damages if his or her negligence is not greater than that of the defendant. The amount of the plaintiffs recovery shall be reduced in proportion to the amount of his or her negligence. If there is more than one defendant, the plaintiffs negligence shall be compared to the combined negligence of all defendants. See Elder v. Orluck, 511 Pa. 402, 515 A. (2d) 517 (1986).
We dispose of appellant’s remaining exceptions pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 23.
Affirmed.
Harwell, Finney and Toal, JJ., and Littlejohn, Associate Justice, concur.We note that on the reeord before us, the doctrine of .comparative negligence would not aid appellant in this case sincé we find as a matter of law no negligence on the part of respondent Clinkscales. See S.G. Code Ann. § 56-5-600(1976).'