Opinion ID: 2390222
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 13

Heading: Alignment of Parties

Text: We reach Ford's final challenge assigning error to the trial court's failure to realign defendant Hale as a plaintiff. Ford requested realignment of Hale as a plaintiff so that Ford would not have to share its allotment of preemptory jury strikes [25] with Hale. [26] We find the issue not preserved for review, but we address this issue in the hope that our speaking to the matter will aid the bench and bar. This is a novel issue in our modern jurisprudence. Hale and her counsel sat on the plaintiff's side throughout the trial, beginning with jury selection. We recognize that Hale filed a cross-claim against Ford, but that claim was severed from this trial. Hale's counsel declined to cross-examine any witness called by Branham but one. The one witness Hale cross-examined was Branham's economic expert. The question: [H]ow many millions are in a billion? The only bona fide defendant in this case was Ford. The following is the totality of Branham's closing argument concerning Hale: I want to first talk with you just a minute about what occurred in the wreck.... Ms. Hale was going down Cromwell Road at a relatively slow speed, 35 miles an hour, she looked in the back, went to the edge of the road, she madewent to the right, made a steer to the left. Nobody knows what that steering was because nobody has a picture of it. We could argue about that from now to eternity and nobody would know, because nobody can know. But she was driving ordinary, she wasn't doing anything she wasn't out there doing any reckless driving out there that day. .... Here, Ms. Hale looked in the backseat; there's no question about that, she took her eyes off the road. But did she do something that was wrong. She did what all reasonable drivers would do, which was she tried to get back on the road. She made the turn to do it and the vehicle rolled over, at 35 miles an hour, under those circumstances. Trial judges in South Carolina have the authority to realign parties. Beyond a court's inherent authority to manage and conduct a trial, our Rule 21, SCRCP, regarding joinder of parties is identical to the federal rule, Rule 21, FRCP. Misjoinder of parties is not ground for dismissal of an action. Parties may be dropped or added by order of the court on motion of any party or of its own initiative at any stage of the action and on such terms as are just. Any claim against a party may be severed and proceeded with separately. Rule 21, SCRCP. Federal courts rely on Rule 21 as authority to realign parties. See In- Tech Mktg. Inc. v. Hasbro, Inc., 685 F.Supp. 436, 442 n. 19 (D.N.J.1988) (noting that Rule 21 permits [the District] Court, sua sponte to re-align any party at any time); First Nat'l Bank of Shawnee Mission v. Roeland Park State Bank & Trust Co., 357 F.Supp. 708, 711 (D.Kan. 1973) (noting that the District Court may order a realignment of the parties `on such terms as are just' pursuant to Rule 21). Our sister state of Georgia relies on Rule 21 in recognizing that a trial court does have the discretion, `at any stage of the action and on such terms as are just,' ... to realign the parties. Cawthon v. Waco Fire & Cas. Ins. Co., 259 Ga. 632, 386 S.E.2d 32, 33 (1989) (citing its codified version of Rule 21). The Cawthon decision is instructive. At trial, the Cawthons made a motion to have a co-defendant realigned as a plaintiff. The Cawthons were concerned that they would be forced to share jury strikes with the [codefendant whose interests were aligned with the plaintiffs]. Id. at 33. The trial court recognized the unfairness of the present alignment, but [stated] that it had no authority to realign the parties. Id. Relying on its own version of Rule 21, the Georgia Supreme Court found the trial court erred in concluding it did not have discretion to realign the parties, and affirmatively held that trial courts have the right to realign parties in the interests of justice. Id. We adopt the reasoning of Cawthon, including the authority of a trial court to realign parties at any stage of the action. Id. The decision whether to realign the parties lies within the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed on appeal absent a showing of an abuse of discretion and resulting prejudice.