Opinion ID: 1316138
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Verdict Reduction

Text: The trial judge reduced appellant's recovery to $300,000, finding there was only one occurrence and thus § 15-78-120(a)(1) operated to reduce the award pursuant to § 33-56-180(A) (actual damages ... in an amount not exceeding the limitations on liability imposed in [§ 15-78-120]). The trial judge reasoned the intent of the CFA was to limit the amount of damages recoverable from a charitable organization, and that to read the term `occurrence' to include every incident where the defendant nurses violated the applicable standard of care [2] would clearly defeat the legislature's [intent]. . . . Alternatively, the judge held that based on the jury charge and verdict form, it was impossible to determine the number of negligent acts or negligent nurses found by the jury and thus only one recovery was appropriate. On appeal, appellant challenges both grounds. We find it necessary to uphold only one ground in order to affirm the trial judge's decision to reduce the verdict. E.g., South Carolina Dist. Council of Assemblies of God v. River of Life Internat'l Worship Center, 372 S.C. 581, 643 S.E.2d 104 (Ct.App.2007). We hold that the general jury verdict supports the trial judge's decision, and affirm. In her post-trial order, the judge gave as one reason for reducing appellant's award the impossibility of determining from the jury instruction and verdict forms whether the jury found one or more than one nurse had rendered negligent care to appellant. Thus, she held, it was impossible to conclude that the jury had found more than one occurrence. Appellant now contends that AnMed bore the burden of proving there was only one occurrence. We disagree. Just as in any tort action, a CFA plaintiff bears the burden of proof. If she alleges multiple occurrences, that is, that there was more than one single act of negligence from which proximately flowed an unfolding sequence of events, she bears the burden of proving each occurrence. Here, the jury was never instructed on the definition of occurrence nor was it asked to determine whether there was more than one occurrence, either in the instructions or in its verdict. The trial judge correctly reformed this verdict to reflect a single occurrence.