Opinion ID: 2506435
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Comparative Negligence Charge

Text: Berberich first argues the trial court abused its discretion in denying his request to charge the jury on the definitions of recklessness, willfulness, and wantonness and to further instruct the jury that a plaintiff's ordinary negligence is not a defense to a defendant's conduct that is reckless, willful, and wanton. Berberich contends reckless, willful, and wanton conduct constitutes a heightened degree of wrongdoing that cannot properly be compared to ordinary negligence. In the alternative, Berberich argues the trial court abused its discretion in failing to instruct the jury that it should give more weight to conduct that is reckless, willful, and wanton. Berberich asserts this case presents a novel issue regarding tort law since the adoption of comparative negligence in this state. An appellate court will not reverse the trial court's decision regarding jury instructions unless the trial court committed an abuse of discretion. Cole v. Raut, 378 S.C. 398, 404, 663 S.E.2d 30, 33 (2008). An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court's ruling is based on an error of law or is not supported by the evidence. Id. An erroneous jury instruction will not result in reversal unless it causes prejudice to the appealing party. Id. at 405, 663 S.E.2d at 33; see also Clark v. Cantrell, 339 S.C. 369, 390, 529 S.E.2d 528, 539 (2000) (When instructing the jury, the trial court is required to charge only principles of law that apply to the issues raised in the pleadings and developed by the evidence in support of those issues.). A jury charge consisting of irrelevant and inapplicable principles may confuse the jury and constitutes reversible error where the jury's confusion affects the outcome of the trial. Cole, 378 S.C. at 404, 663 S.E.2d at 33.