- 8 -
South Carolina) (citing Hubbard & Felix, Comparative Negligence
in South Carolina: Implementing Nelson v. Concrete Supply Co.,
43 S.C. L. Rev. 273, 314 (1992)).2 Punitive damages serve under
South Carolina law to punish the defendant and to deter
unacceptable behavior. See Gamble v. Stevenson, 406 S.E.2d 350,
354 (S.C. 1991); Macmurphy v. South Carolina, 367 S.E.2d 150, 151
(S.C. 1988); Laird v. Nationwide Ins. Co., supra at 210; Bowers
v. Charleston & W. C. Ry., supra; see also Gilbert v. Duke Power
Co., 179 S.E.2d 720, 723 (S.C. 1971) (citing Davenport v.
Woodside Cotton Mills Co., 80 S.E.2d 740 (1954) (punitive damages
serve to punish a wrongdoer when the plaintiff proves that the
wrongdoer violated the plaintiff's rights in a "wanton, willful
or malicious" way). Punitive damages do not serve under South
Carolina law to reimburse a victim for actual damages. See Laird
v. Nationwide Ins. Co., supra at 210; Bowers v. Charleston & W.
C. Ry., supra; cf. Kewin v. Massachusetts Mut. Life Ins. Co., 295
N.W.2d 50, 55 (Mich. 1980) (In Michigan, exemplary damages are
recoverable as compensation to the plaintiff, not as punishment
of the defendant); Doroszka v. Lavine, 150 A. 692, 692-693 (Conn.
1930)("in this state the purpose [of punitive damages] is not to
2 We are mindful that we are bound only by the
decisions of the South Carolina Supreme Court in
construing the law of that State. See Commissioner v.
Estate of Bosch, 387 U.S. 456, 465 (1967). The
opinion in Clark v. Cantrell, 504 S.E.2d 605 (S.C. Ct. App.
1998), is helpful to our understanding of South Carolina law as
construed by the South Carolina Supreme Court.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011