 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Hollingsworth v. Wehman6/14/2005
Submitted June 1, 2005
AFFIRMED
The plaintiffs in this personal injury action appeal a defense verdict. Their first issue argues a directed verdict on the issue of negligence entitled them a plaintiff's verdict and at least de minimis damages as a matter of law. The second issue assigns error to the magistrate's release of the jurors and its failure to grant a new trial absolute, new trial under the thirteenth juror doctrine, or judgment notwithstanding the verdict. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorties: Issue I: Hinds v. Elms, 358 S.C. 581, 585, 595 S.E.2d 855, 857 (Ct. App. 2004) (holding a determination of negligence, standing alone, is a far cry from a determination of liability; liability encompasses all elements of a negligence claim, including damages proximately caused by the alleged negligence); Issue II: Wilder Corp. v. Wilkie, 330 S.C. 71, 76, 497 S.E.2d 731, 733 (1998) ("It is axiomatic that an issue cannot be raised for the first time on appeal, but must have been raised to and ruled upon by the trial judge to be preserved for appellate review"); Steele v. Self Serve, Inc., 335 S.C. 323, 328, 516 S.E.2d 674, 677 (Ct. App. 1999) ("An issue not raised in an intermediate appeal cannot be considered in a subsequent appeal.").
AFFIRMED.
GOOLSBY, HUFF, and KITTREDGE, JJ., concur.
Page 1 South Carolina Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|