Collins v. Doe

I respectfully dissent. In my view, the majority’s opinion ignores the clear intent of the legislature by holding that sworn testimony by an eye-witness is not the functional equivalent of a sworn affidavit for purposes of S.C. Code Ann. § 38-77-170(2) (Supp. 2001). Section 38-77-170 governs when a motorist can recover under an uninsured motorist provision when the at-fault motorist is unknown.

Originally, an action for recovery against an unknown driver was permitted only when the damages were caused by physical contact with the unknown driver. See Act No. 312, 1963 S.C. Acts 535. As the…