Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.

Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw

Pilgrim v. Miller

Date: 06-17-2002

Case Number: 3520

Judge: Goolsby

Court: In The Court of Appeals of South Carolina

Plaintiff's Attorney: "_new">Robert E. Davis, of The Ward Law Firm, of Spartanburg, for appellant.

Defendant's Attorney: "_new">Andrew N. Poliakoff, of Spartanburg, for respondent.

Description:

Alice Mae Pilgrim sued Yvonne Wardlaw Miller to recover for injuries she allegedly sustained in an automobile accident. Miller defaulted and, after a damages hearing, Pilgrim was awarded a judgment of $50,000. Miller appeals the trial court's denial of her motion to set aside the default. We affirm.

Facts

This action arises out of an automobile accident that occurred on April 11, 1997. Pilgrim was stopped at a red light when the YMCA van she was driving was rear-ended by Miller. Pilgrim served a summons and complaint on Miller almost three years later on March 24, 2000. The next day, Miller took the suit papers to an attorney, who instructed her to take them to her insurance company. Miller promptly delivered the summons and complaint to an agent for Allstate Insurance Company.

Allstate failed to timely file an answer on behalf of Miller, and Pilgrim obtained an entry of default on May 17, 2000. Miller moved for relief from the default pursuant to Rule 55(c), SCRCP. Pilgrim opposed the motion on the basis that it stated no grounds in support of the request and "good cause" did not exist to set aside the entry of default. Pilgrim asserted her attorney had been in "continuous contact" with Allstate adjusters since the day after the accident and they had been fully apprised of the pending claim for almost three years.

* * *

Click the case caption above for the
full text of the Court's opinion.

Outcome:

Miller cross-examined Pilgrim about her injuries and the relevancy of her medical bills. In addition, Miller extensively questioned her doctors regarding their treatment as well as perceived flaws in the evidence. The question of whether the medical bills were, in fact, sufficiently related to the injuries Pilgrim allegedly sustained in the April 11, 1997 motor vehicle accident was for the fact finder to consider in determining the amount of recoverable damages. Under these circumstances, Miller's arguments go to the weight and credibility of the evidence, rather than its admissibility. (11) Accordingly, we find no reversible error in this regard.

Affirmed in favor of Defendant for $50,000.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Unavailable

Defendant's Experts:

Unavailable

Comments:

C.L.

About This Case

What was the outcome of Pilgrim v. Miller?

The outcome was: Miller cross-examined Pilgrim about her injuries and the relevancy of her medical bills. In addition, Miller extensively questioned her doctors regarding their treatment as well as perceived flaws in the evidence. The question of whether the medical bills were, in fact, sufficiently related to the injuries Pilgrim allegedly sustained in the April 11, 1997 motor vehicle accident was for the fact finder to consider in determining the amount of recoverable damages. Under these circumstances, Miller's arguments go to the weight and credibility of the evidence, rather than its admissibility. (11) Accordingly, we find no reversible error in this regard. Affirmed in favor of Defendant for $50,000.

Which court heard Pilgrim v. Miller?

This case was heard in In The Court of Appeals of South Carolina, SC. The presiding judge was Goolsby.

Who were the attorneys in Pilgrim v. Miller?

Plaintiff's attorney: Robert E. Davis, of The Ward Law Firm, of Spartanburg, for appellant.. Defendant's attorney: Andrew N. Poliakoff, of Spartanburg, for respondent..

When was Pilgrim v. Miller decided?

This case was decided on June 17, 2002.