 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
STRANGE v. S.C. DEPT. HIGHWAYS & PUBLIC TRANS.6/6/1994
nting a motion for mistrial. The order stated in pertinent part:
he parties agree that the stipulation used
in the first trial of the case is of
continued effect. The exact language of this
stipulation is as follows:
The Highway Department had actual notice by
December 14, 1987, that certain portions of
Billy Dreher Island Road had low shoulders,
including those that are relevant to this
action.
The consent order did not mention any agreement to limit testimony concerning other accidents.
"Whether or not a party to an action may be relieved from stipulations entered into in the course of judicial
Based on the literal language of the consent order, there was no longer a stipulation to limit testimony. Additionally, the Highway Department's motion to exclude testimony of other accidents was pending when the consent order was issued. Thus, we find the trial court did not abuse his discretion in finding that the Respondents were not bound by the earlier stipulation excluding testimony of other accidents on the same road.
We do not address the remaining arguments raised by appellant. We find they are manifestly without merit. Rule 220 (b) (2), SCACR. Accordingly, the judgment is
Affirmed.
CHANDLER, Acting C.J., TOAL and MOORE, JJ., and BRUCE LITTLEJOHN, Acting Associate Justice, concur.
|