COLUMBIA, S.C. (Legal Newsline) - Punitive damages are now a possibility for a woman who slipped on a waxy floor, thanks to a ruling by the South Carolina Supreme Court.
Plaintiff Karrie Gurwood was found to be 50% at fault for her injuries at Liberty Hill Academy in North Charleston by a jury that was never allowed to decide whether defendant GCA Services Group should be punished more than $85,000 for Gurwood's past medical damages.
No matter the ever-changing standards for when a judge can decide the punitive damages issue on their own or leave it up to the jury, the court found March 12, trial judge Alex Kinlaw was wrong to rule for GCA on that matter.
Inadequate signage left Gurwood unaware of the slippery floor could be cause to punish GCA, the Supreme Court said.
"We find the evidence presented here could reasonably support a jury verdict that the Gurwoods proved by clear and convincing evidence (floor-waxer Bonnie Every) or GCA was reckless," Justice John Cannon Few wrote.
"Every's testimony clearly indicates she knew the floors would be dangerous to anyone entering the building."
The case has been pending since 2015. Though the Gurwoods originally retained counsel, it now appears they represented themselves through the appeals process.
And that could possibly pay off now, with either a trial on punitive damages only or an entirely new trial including the option for punitive damages.
Gurwood was headed to her office at Liberty Hill on Aug. 5, 2012. She slipped on the floor, testifying it "was like a sheet of ice" and that she did not see warning cones or signs.
GCA's employee training manual requires warnings to keep people off waxed floors. Every said she leaves the signs up until the floor is dry and told the school when she was waxing to avoid blame for any fall.
"This testimony demonstrates Every knew freshly waxed floors are dangerous," Few wrote.
On this day, Every took two sheets of paper and a red marker to make her own warning signs. That type of sign is not listed in the GCA manual. GCA did not provide her "closed for cleaning" signs, safety fences or yellow caution tape - only "wet floor" signs and orange cones.
Every and Gurwood dispute whether Every had warned Gurwood on Friday about the Sunday waxing. Gurwood has since been diagnosed with Complex Regional Pain Syndrome in her left leg that she claims caused her to feel suicidal.
Judge Kinlaw, in Charleston County, granted GCA's motion for a directed verdict on the issue of punitive damages, but both state appeals courts have now reversed that decision.
"(Every) also testified she knew not only that it was important to place approved signs and placards to warn of slick floors, but also that she was required to do so by GCA," Few wrote.
"If the jury believed Karrie's and Howard's testimony there were no signs or placards when Karrie fell, then Every clearly knowingly violated the instructions GCA provided to her in the training manual, thereby creating a condition she knew was dangerous to someone like Karrie."
And if Every is to be believed that GCA did not provide the appropriate signs and placards, then a jury could find the Gurwoods have cleared the hurdle for proving punitive damages are warranted, Few added.
"Even if the jury believed Every that she put up handmade signs because she did not have the required signs available, she still knowingly violated the requirements of the training manual after GCA did not comply with its own standards," he wrote.
The result is a somewhat complicated future for the case. The Court of Appeals had ordered a new trial on issues, including husband Howard's loss of consortium that the jury rejected.
Now, the Court of Appeals will decide all issues on appeal, which could possibly include the size of the verdict. If it reverses anything that happened at the trial, then it should remand for a new trial on everything.
However, if no reversals happen and only the reinstated punitive damages claim remains, it should order a new trial for just that. GCA could then decide for a trial on actual and punitive damages, or just punitive.
"While we recognize a new trial only on punitive damages will be an awkward undertaking, we are confident our circuit courts are capable of handling the difficulty," Few wrote.