 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Roche v. Young Brothers8/10/1998
us, it was properly allowed.
Finally, Young Brothers contends that the special referee's order was improperly based on speculative and conjectural testimony and that the judgment for actual and punitive damages was excessive and unjustifiable. Upon examining the record, we find that Young Brothers was not unfairly prejudiced by any speculative or conjectural testimony. We further find the evidence supports the referee's judgment for actual and punitive damages. See Miller v. City of West Columbia, 322 S.C. 224, 231, 471 S.E.2d 683, 687 (1996)("The appellate court will intervene only where the verdict is so grossly excessive and the amount awarded is so shockingly disproportionate to the injuries to indicate that it was tho result of caprice, passion, prejudice, or other considerations not found on the evidence.").
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, the Court of Appeals' decision is REVERSED and the special referee's order is reinstated.
FINNEY, C.J., MOORE and BURNETT, JJ., and Acting Associate justice George T. Gregory, Jr., concur.
|