Opinion ID: 1292063
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Comparative NegligencePlaintiffs Degree of Fault

Text: County next argues it was entitled to a directed verdict because Creech was more than fifty percent negligent as a matter of law. We disagree. Comparison of a plaintiff's negligence with that of the defendant is a question of fact for the jury to decide. See, e.g., Ott v. Pittman, 320 S.C. 72, 80, 463 S.E.2d 101, 106 (Ct.App.1995) (citing trial judge's statement that because this was a comparative negligence case, even if the plaintiff's testimony amounted to an admission of negligence, it was a question of fact for the jury to compare the plaintiff's negligence [with that of the defendant].); cf. Gruber v. Santee Frozen Foods, Inc., 309 S.C. 13, 21, 419 S.E.2d 795, 800 (Ct.App.1992) (Generally, contributory negligence is a question for determination by the jury. But when the evidence admits only one reasonable inference, it becomes a matter of law for the determination of the court.), cert. denied, 1993. A directed verdict is warranted only if the only reasonable inference that may be drawn from the evidence is that the plaintiffs negligence exceeded fifty percent. Here, evidence was presented suggesting that Creech, County, and Wildlife Department were all negligent. In our view, the jury reasonably could have drawn many different conclusions regarding the relative fault of the parties. Under such circumstances, a directed verdict would have been wholly inappropriate. We find no error here. [1]