Judge, Court of Appeals of South Carolina
North Point Development Group, LLC v. South Carolina Department of Transportation
Court of Appeals of South Carolina · 2012-03-14
North Point Development Group sued the South Carolina Department of Transportation after the agency denied its application for an encroachment permit to build a driveway from its property onto U.S. Highway 378 at a location the Department classified as a controlled-access facility. The circuit court dismissed the suit for lack of jurisdiction, holding that judicial review under section 57-5-1120 applies only to non-controlled-access highways and that the Department had validly acquired access rights from North Point’s predecessor in title. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed that the chain of title sufficiently established the transfer of access rights and that the location of the highway plans did not violate any statutory notice requirements. It reversed the jurisdictional ruling, however, reasoning that courts retain authority to review whether the Department’s refusal to consider a permit application constituted an arbitrary or capricious exercise of the discretion granted by section 57-5-1040. The case was remanded for the circuit court to make that determination.
propertyprocedurebusiness & regulatory
Fettler v. Gentner
Court of Appeals of South Carolina · 2012-01-25 · cited 9×
In Fettler v. Gentner, a passenger sued for negligence and damages after being rear-ended at a yield sign on an interstate on-ramp in Columbia, South Carolina, when the driver behind her (Gentner) struck the vehicle while it was yielding to oncoming traffic. The trial court denied the plaintiff's motions for directed verdict and JNOV on the issue of the defendant's negligence, allowed the case to go to the jury, and the jury returned a verdict for Gentner; the court later denied post-trial relief. The South Carolina Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, holding that Gentner was negligent as a matter of law because the evidence permitted only one reasonable inference: he breached his duty to keep a proper lookout by admitting he stopped watching the vehicle ahead and instead focused on a distant turning car, with no contrary evidence showing the lead vehicle acted improperly. The court further ruled that the jury should not have been instructed on negligence principles at all, as the issue was resolved by law rather than fact, rendering the charge irrelevant and potentially confusing.
torts & liabilityprocedure
State v. Galimore
Court of Appeals of South Carolina · 2012-01-25 · cited 3×
In State v. Galimore, Rodney Galimore faced charges of reckless homicide, driving under suspension, child endangerment, and felony DUI after a vehicular accident. The trial court quashed the initial felony DUI indictment for failing to allege a specific traffic violation, granted the State a continuance on the remaining charges, allowed re-indictment alleging a violation of section 56-5-1810 (failure to drive on the right side of the roadway), denied Galimore’s motions for directed verdicts at trial, and entered convictions on all counts. Galimore appealed the directed-verdict denials and the continuance. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that evidence of the roadway violation, viewed in the light most favorable to the State, was sufficient to submit both the felony DUI and derivative child-endangerment charges to the jury, and that the trial court acted within its discretion in granting the brief continuance because Galimore had long been aware of the indictment’s potential defect.
criminal lawprocedure
Black v. Lexington County Board of Zoning Appeals
Court of Appeals of South Carolina · 2012-01-25 · cited 1×
In Black v. Lexington County Board of Zoning Appeals, Margie Kay Black appealed the circuit court's affirmance of the Lexington County Board of Zoning Appeals' decision granting Reitech, LLC a zoning variance to reduce buffering, setback, and screening requirements for an existing paint shed and a proposed sandblasting shed on its steel fabrication property in Leesville, South Carolina. The Court of Appeals affirmed. The court held that the Board correctly found the property met the statutory criteria for a variance under S.C. Code § 6-29-800 and the county zoning ordinance, as the pre-existing fabrication facility (dating to 1982, before the 2001 zoning) created an extraordinary condition unique to the site that would otherwise unreasonably restrict its use, and the variance would not harm adjacent properties or the district's character.
propertybusiness & regulatory
Dinkins v. LOWE'S HOME CENTERS, INC.
Court of Appeals of South Carolina · 2012-01-04
In this workers’ compensation case, Henry Dinkins sought total disability benefits after suffering three work-related injuries at Lowe’s Home Centers—an ankle injury in 2001, a knee injury in 2002, and a back injury in 2005—arguing that his preexisting leg impairments combined with his back condition to cause a greater overall disability under S.C. Code § 42-9-400. The single commissioner, Appellate Panel, and circuit court all rejected this claim, awarding Dinkins only a 12% permanent partial disability rating for his back under the scheduled benefits of § 42-9-30 and finding his prior injuries did not contribute to his current disability. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that substantial evidence supported the Appellate Panel’s determination that Dinkins’ back injury was separate and distinct, with no greater disability resulting from the combined effects of his injuries, and that he therefore could not establish total disability under § 42-9-10. The court further noted that Dinkins’ evidence of unsuccessful job searches did not need to be addressed once the combination issue was resolved against him.
labor & employment
State v. Taylor
Court of Appeals of South Carolina · 2011-12-21 · cited 1×
Robert Taylor was convicted of second-degree criminal sexual conduct with a minor and kidnapping for sexually assaulting an 11-year-old boy during a 1998 church camping trip, after he had previously pled guilty to a similar 1999 offense against the same victim. On appeal, Taylor challenged the trial court’s rulings on the State’s Batson motion regarding jury strikes, the admission of his prior conviction as evidence of a common scheme or plan, the denial of his directed-verdict motion, and his sentence of life without parole under South Carolina’s recidivist statute. The Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions and sentence, holding that the trial court properly found the challenged strike racially motivated, that the prior conviction was admissible, that the evidence was sufficient to support the verdicts, and that the 1995 version of the recidivist statute applied to authorize life without parole based on the sequence of the offenses.
criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure