 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
WILLIAMS v. ROBERTSON GILCHRIST CONST. CO.3/12/1990
emembered that when a new trial nisi additur is granted, if the party ruled against agrees to the amount provided by the order granting the motion, then he may not complain; on the other hand, if he does not agree, he has the right to retry the case. See Jones v. Ingles Supermarkets, Inc., 293 S.C. 490, 361 S.E.2d 775 (Ct. App. 1987).
CONCLUSION
We hold that in granting a motion for a new trial nisi additur it is not necessary for the trial judge in so many words to say or write in his order that the verdict was grossly inadequate. It is sufficient, in granting a motion for a new trial nisi additur, that the trial judge verbalize his conclusion that the jury in awarding damages disregarded the facts of the case or the judge's instruction. When these compelling reasons are stated in the order granting the motion, it is, we hold, tantamount to a verbalization of the trial judge's conclusion that the verdict was grossly inadequate. And we so hold.
Affirmed.
BELL, J., concurs.
I respectfully dissent.
This is an action for
The trial court granted a new trial to Williams should Robertson Gilchrist elect not to pay an additur of $54,410. The trial court did not prescribe a time limit within which Robertson Gilchrist was to make its choice.
Robertson Gilchrist immediately appealed without electing whether to pay the additur suggested by the trial court. After serving its notice of appeal, Robertson Gilchrist paid Williams the sum of $170,590.
I would dismiss Robertson Gilchrist's appeal as premature because Robertson Gilchrist has yet to choose between paying the additur or submitting to a new trial. See McBroom v. Hill, 365 So.2d 63 (Miss. 1978) (an appeal from an order granting an additur or a new trial held premature where the additur had not been accepted and no new trial had been held
The payment by Robertson Gilchrist to Williams after service of its notice of appeal of the amount of the jury's verdict cannot be viewed as either an acceptance or a rejection either of the additur or of a new trial since the payment can suggest either that Robertson Gilchrist has declined to accept the additur or that it has declined the alternative of a new trial.
GOOLSBY, Judge (dissenting):
Page 1 2 South Carolina Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|