Cobb v. Lafoy

• Decision Date: 28 May 2014
• Docket Number: 2014-MO-014
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
• Parties: Ernest L. Cobb and Nancy Cobb, Respondents, v. Dan M. Lafoy, Appellant. Appellate Case No. 2012-212693

Ernest L. Cobb and Nancy Cobb, Respondents, v. Dan M. Lafoy, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2012-212693

No. 2014-MO-014

Supreme Court of South Carolina

May 28, 2014

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

Heard March 6, 2014

Appeal from Oconee County Alexander S. Macaulay, Circuit Court Judge

Robert Daniel Moseley, Jr., and Joseph William Rohe, both of Smith Moore Leatherwood, LLP of Greenville, for Appellant.

Larry C. Brandt, of Larry C. Brandt, PA, of Walhalla, for Respondents.

PER CURIAM

We affirm the order granting a new trial under the Thirteenth Juror Doctrine since there is conflicting evidence in the record whether appellant was negligent. See e.g. Rivera v. Newton, 401 S.C. 402, 413, 737 S.E.2d 193, 198 (Ct. App. 2012)("As long as there is conflicting evidence, the trial court's grant of a new trial will not be disturbed."). We remind the parties that the evidentiary rulings made in the first trial, including whether there was evidence warranting a jury charge, do not "carryover" to the next proceeding. See e.g. Branham v. Ford Motor Co., 390 S.C. 203, 232, 701 S.E.2d 5, 20 (2010); Odom v. Steigerwald, 260 S.C. 422, 428, 196 S.E.2d 635, 638 (1973). Nothing in our decision today should be construed as reaching the issue whether the trial judge was correct in declining to charge the defense of sudden emergency.

AFFIRMED.

TOAL, C. J, PLEICONES, BEATTY, KITTREDGE and HEARN, JJ, concur