Court Opinion

ID: 9847529
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 04:01:32.719072+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:17:19.560468
License: Public Domain

Shaw, Judge
(dissenting):
I respectfully dissent. I would affirm the Circuit Court’s ruling because I believe the Industrial Commission’s decision prejudiced Suitt Construction Company’s substantial rights because it is “clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative and substantial evidence on the whole record ...” S. C. Code Ann. § l-23-380(g) (5) (Supp. 1984).
The record reveals the following evidence: (1) although the claimant stated the decedent had not, to her knowledge, drank since January or February of 1981, she testified to his history of alcoholism; (2) a blood alcohol level of 0.212% and an ocular fluid level of .185%; (3) the accident involved only the decedent and there is no evidence of mechanical failure; (4) the testimony of a truck driver that the decedent was driving recklessly right before the accident, including attempting to pass between two cars at 60 miles per hour; and finally (5) although the decedent traveled from Charleston *508to Columbia and picked up the tool in approximately two hours, he had not yet arrived back in Charleston when he wrecked approximately four hours later. This great disparity in travel time was unexplained in the record.
There was some mitigating testimony but I would hold it is insufficient to overcome the above evidence. Considering the entire record I think the only reasonable conclusion is the decedent was intoxicated at the time of the accident.