Florence County School District 2 v. Interkal, Inc.

Citations: 559 S.E.2d 866; 348 S.C. 446; 2002 S.C. App. LEXIS 18Docket: 3443

Court: Court of Appeals of South Carolina; February 11, 2002; South Carolina; State Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Florence County School District No. 2 appealed a ruling denying its claim for contribution from Interkal, Inc. in a negligence case stemming from a bleacher collapse that injured eleven-year-old Anthony Altman during a basketball game. Altman had sued both the School District and Interkal, the bleacher manufacturer, for various claims including negligence and breach of warranty. The School District settled with Altman and sought to recover part of the settlement from Interkal under the Uniform Contribution Among Tortfeasors Act.

The bleachers in question were installed in 1969 and 1971, with Interkal becoming aware of safety issues in 1979. Interkal issued multiple safety bulletins and a Safety Alert Manual to the School District, advising on necessary inspections and maintenance to prevent hazards. Despite these warnings, the School District failed to maintain records or establish a maintenance schedule. In 1990, it sought repair proposals from Mastercraft Renovation Systems, but the proposals were not presented to the school board. Expert testimony indicated that the bleacher collapse was primarily due to the School District's negligence in neglecting maintenance recommendations from both Interkal and Mastercraft. The court ultimately affirmed the lower court's findings, ruling against both parties' appeals.

Melvin Richardson, Ph.D., an engineering expert, testified that while following Mastercraft's repair suggestions and a maintenance schedule might have mitigated the risk of bleacher collapse, the bleachers were defectively designed, leading to latch failures that caused the collapse. The School District's claim for contribution was sent to a special referee for a final decision. Interkal contended that the South Carolina Statute of Repose barred recovery since the lawsuit was filed over thirteen years post-installation of the bleachers. Interkal also argued that the School District's negligence was the sole cause of the injury to Altman. 

The special referee, after reviewing arguments and depositions, deemed the settlement with Altman reasonable and found Interkal negligent in the design of the bleachers and in breach of its warranty. However, the referee concluded that the Statute of Repose provided an absolute defense for the School District, protecting Interkal from liability as the lawsuit was not initiated within the required time frame. The referee further held that any negligence by the School District did not constitute an intervening act and that Interkal's defective design was a proximate cause of Altman's injury. Without the Statute of Repose defense, Interkal would have been liable.

Both parties appealed the decision. The School District argued that the special referee mistakenly concluded that the Statute of Repose also barred joint liability under the Uniform Contribution Among Tortfeasors Act, suggesting that the mere existence of a cause of action should trigger the right to contribution. However, the appellate court noted that this issue may not be preserved for review, as the School District did not include the oral arguments transcript in the appeal record and the special referee did not rule on this specific argument. Thus, the appellate court was unable to determine the validity of the School District's claims regarding the right to contribution.

Equitable proceedings are addressed given the uncertainty regarding the issues raised. The interpretation of statutes focuses on the legislative intent derived from the language and purpose of the law. If a statute's language is clear, no additional interpretation is warranted. The Uniform Contribution Among Tortfeasors Act allows for contribution claims among parties jointly liable in tort, even without a judgment against all involved. The South Carolina Statute of Repose establishes a thirteen-year limit for actions related to defective improvements to real property, including claims for contribution or indemnification. In this case, the personal injury action arose over thirteen years after the installation of the bleachers, and the School District acknowledges the application of the Statute of Repose. The legislature intended to protect those improving real property from contribution claims after this statutory period. Neighboring jurisdictions have similarly ruled that statutes of repose bar contribution actions post statutory time limits. The distinction between statutes of limitations (procedural) and statutes of repose (substantive) is emphasized, with the latter providing an absolute time limit beyond which liability is extinguished. Thus, the Statute of Repose prevents the School District's contribution claim, affirming the special referee's finding and leading to the conclusion of an affirmed judgment.