Court Opinion

ID: 9579742
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:58:08.03626+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:35:44.099559
License: Public Domain

Gardner, Judge
(dissenting):
I disagree with my brethren of the majority opinion. I would affirm the award of punitive damages made by the jury.
Where a jury verdict in a tort case is supported by a scintilla of relevant and credible evidence of record, the verdict must be affirmed on appeal. Jones v. Sun Publishing Co., 278 S. C. 12, 292 S. E. (2d) 23 (1982).
*147Dan River’s manufacturing business in Easley, South Carolina, involved the use of two coal burning furnaces from which a gaseous residue was emitted through a tall smokestack into the neighboring atmosphere. Immediately prior to November 1980 the furnaces were twenty-five years old and very much in need of repair. The smokestack was about seventy years old. Plaintiff’s complaints allege that prior to the middle of November 1980 the emissions seemed tolerable to them. They then alleged that on or about that date, there was suddenly ejected from the smokestack a tarry soot which damaged their property. Dan River was notified. It sought first to buy time by assuring plaintiffs that it was taking steps to avoid polluting the atmosphere. It then repaired the old furnaces and by the first of April 1981 the problem was apparently corrected.
Dan River contends and the majority opinion holds that because it acted diligently when notified of the initial pollution and finally corrected the situation, the award of punitive damages constitutes error.
There is foreign authority, as noted in the majority opinion, that where the first alleged fact of injury and damage occurs without foreknowledge or reason to believe that it might happen, punitive damages are not recoverable if the defendant then took all reasonable steps to prevent a reoc-currence.1 This is not the case before us.
The complaints allege that both the initial serious pollution in November 1980 and subsequent pollutions after notice was given of the first serious pollutions, were acts of recklessness, willfulness and wantonness.
The record is replete with evidence that Dan River before the initial pollution of November 1980 had foreknowledge of and good reason to believe that there was a likelihood that its operation might pollute the atmosphere and damage the property of plaintiffs. This foreknowledge created a duty on the part of Dan River to avoid tortiously polluting the atmosphere. There is evidence of record supporting the jury’s finding that the breach of this duty constituted recklessness, willfulness, and wantonness as plaintiffs alleged.
*148The boilers which caused the pollution were twenty-five years old and in need of repair before November 1980. Through discovery, plaintiffs unearthed and introduced as evidence interoffice memoranda of the offices of the defendant. Among these is a letter of November 24, 1980 from John R. Hall, Division Engineer for Dan River which contained the following:
The boiler [which caused the pollution] is operating as well as it can under the conditions of age and type. The boiler is about twenty-five years old, is in poor mechanical shape because of age, and has no external means of removing the fly ash from the stack discharge. The only means that we have for controlling fly ash discharge is in operator procedures2 ....
On November 24, 1980, John Holder wrote:
I want to remind all of us that we are on the ragged edge with the Easley boilers when it comes to operating with a clean, acceptable stack discharge.
On February 9, 1981, Mr. Hall wrote:
... The Easley boiler installation has been a matter of increasing concern for the last few years. ... These boilers have been on the “ragged edge” for years as far as the air pollution regulations are concerned. (Emphasis ours.)
Under the law of this state, punitive damages are allowed for a tort which is reckless, willful and wanton. Martin v. Martin, 262 S. C. 168, 203 S. E. (2d) 385 (1974) in pertinent part reads:
The test for determining whether a tort may be deemed reckless, willful or wanton is whether it has been committed in such a manner and under such circumstances that a person of ordinary reason or prudence would have been conscious of it as an invasion of the rights of the injured party.
*149I would hold that the evidence of record supports the jury’s finding that a person of ordinary reason or prudence would have been conscious of the danger presented by the twenty-five year old boilers which admittedly were on the “ragged edge” of safety and that the initial pollution, and therefore its continuance, was a reckless, willful and wanton tort. I would accordingly affirm the punitive damages award.
The majority opinion asserts, with great importance attached thereto, that in the Fall of 1980 there had been a DHEC inspection and Dan River was found to be in compliance with DHEC regulations. What an inspection! Dan River had a liaison office to maintain liaison, and inferentially good-will, with DHEC. The DHEC officer who testified admitted that before the inspection he notified Dan River. His inspection was a visual observation of the smokestack for about 30 minutes. This type inspection occurred just once a year and before it occurred, as noted, Dan River was notified.
Throughout the testimony of this case the offices of Dan River admitted that the boiler operators were crucial in preventing pollution and that much depended upon the boiler operator to remove ash and cinders from the boiler so that they would not be injected into the air. In fact the very first consideration is the boiler operator. As late as March 24,1981, Mr. Hall complained to the Chairman of the Board of Directors of Dan River thusly:
My purpose in writing is to raise the point of operator requirements for the rebuilt boiler. As I understand it, a fireman is used full time in the boiler room on the first shift; however, on the off shifts I understand that a shop employee fires the boiler as part of his job.
And in addition to the questionable validity of the prearranged visual inspection by DHEC, another inspection was made less than two months after the DHEC inspection by an expert employed by Dan River; he made visual observations of the emissions and also a complete inspection of the internal operation of the boilers and the operation thereof. His inspection reflected gross violations of DHEC regulations. The jury had before it all of this information. A DHEC *150agent testified. It was for the jury and not this court to evaluate the credibility and weight of the testimony of the DHEC agent.
For the foregoing reason, I respectfully disagree with my brethren of the majority opinion.
I would affirm the verdict of the jury.

 Dan River in its brief admits there is no South Carolina authority but cites, Newman v. Nelson, 350 F. (2d) 604 (10th Cir. 1965), Atkinson v. Herrington, 200 Kan. 298, 436 P. (2d) 816 (1968) and Laurel Equipment Co. v. Matthews, 218 Miss. 718, 67 So. (2d) 258 (1953).

 The operator procedures were inadequate as admitted in a later letter of John Hall.