Opinion ID: 1235734
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: immunity based on discretionary acts

Text: Appellant next argues that it is immune from liability for respondents, losses because its acts were discretionary and therefore protected under the South Carolina Tort Claims Act. Because we remand for a new trial on other grounds, we decline to reach this issue. We direct appellant's attention, however, to our recent treatment of discretionary immunity in Foster v. South Carolina Department of Highways and Public Transportation, 413 S.E. (2d) 31 (S.C. Sup. Ct. 1992) (Davis Adv. Sh. No. 1 at 42). In sum, we hold that the trial judge erred in refusing, under the circumstances, to allow appellant's expert to testify as to the ultimate issue; in allowing respondents' expert to testify as an expert in accident reconstruction; and in failing to charge the jury regarding assumption of the risk. We dispose of appellant's remaining exceptions pursuant to Rule 220, SCACR. The jury verdict is reversed and the case remanded for a new trial. Reversed and remanded. CHANDLER, FINNEY and TOAL, JJ., and JASPER M. CURETON, Acting Associate Justice, concur.