Craven v. Cunningham
| Citation | 292 S.C. 441,357 S.E.2d 23 |
| Decision Date | 20 April 1987 |
| Docket Number | No. 22734,22734 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina |
| Parties | Charles N. CRAVEN and Susan Craven, Appellants, v. Elizabeth S. CUNNINGHAM and Sheila C. Cunningham, Respondents. . Heard |
John R. Clarke, North Myrtle Beach, for appellants.
O. Allen Alexander, of McCutcheon, McCutcheon & Baxter, Conway, for respondents.
Appellant Charles N. Craven (Mr. Craven) commenced this action seeking recovery for personal injuries suffered as a result of an automobile accident. Appellant Susan Craven (Mrs. Craven), by a separate action, sought damages for loss of consortium. Both cases were consolidated for trial. The jury returned a verdict of $6,100 for actual damages in favor of Mr. Craven, but denied Mrs. Craven damages in her suit. Appellants moved for a new trial, alleging the verdicts were inconsistent. Mr. Craven also motioned for a new trial additur on the grounds that the verdict in his case was grossly inadequate. The trial court refused each of appellants' motions. We affirm.
The appellants are husband and wife. Mr. Craven was driving a motor vehicle when the accident occurred. At the accident scene, he stated that he was not injured but was slightly "shaken up." The day following the accident, Mr. Craven visited a physician and was given pain pills and muscle relaxants. Prior to the accident, Mr. Craven was being treated for separated ribs and had suffered a back injury for which he was receiving monthly benefits for a ten percent disability. On his visit the day after the accident, Mr. Craven complained to the physician of a recurrence of pain in his left chest. He did not complain of any pain or injury to the cervical spine, neck or back until approximately one month later when he was examined by several chiropractors. The chiropractors testified that Mr. Craven had suffered permanent injury to his cervical spine and gave testimony concerning treatment required by Mr. Craven and its cost.
Mrs. Cravens' suit for loss of consortium was based on her allegations of a detrimental change in their marital relationship as a result of the automobile accident, Mr. Craven's inability to perform certain household chores, and for assistance she provided in carrying her husband to the chiropractic sessions.
Appellants argue the trial court erred in refusing to grant their motions for a new trial because the jury's verdicts were irreconcilably inconsistent. See Prego v. Hobart, et al., 287 S.C. 116, 336 S.E.2d 725 (Ct.App.1985); Haskins v. Fairfield Electric Cooperative, 283 S.C. 229, 321 S.E.2d 185 (1984). Our view of the evidence does not support the conclusion that these verdicts were irreconcilably inconsistent. As this Court stated in South Carolina State Highway Department v. Clarkson, 267 S.C. 121, 226 S.E.2d 696 (1976), a trial judge's decision granting or denying a new trial will not be disturbed unless his decision is wholly unsupported by the evidence or the conclusions of law have been controlled by an error of law.
Based upon the facts in this record, we conclude that these cases are easily distinguishable from Prego and Haskins, supra. In the instant case, the issues of the extent of Mr. Craven's accident-related injuries and post-accident deterioration of the marriage relationship were contested throughout the trial. H...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Steinke v. SC DEPT. OF LABOR, LICENSING
...law. South Carolina Dep't of Highways and Pub. Transp. v. E.S.I. Investments, 332 S.C. 490, 505 S.E.2d 593 (1998); Craven v. Cunningham, 292 S.C. 441, 357 S.E.2d 23 (1987). 1. Did the trial judge err in ruling that Department owes a special or private duty to riders of a licensed amusement ......
-
Reilly v. Cartledge
...strong arguments made by trial counsel, the jury simply did not accept the defense's version of the events. SeeCraven v. Cunningham, 292 S.C. 441, 443, 357 S.E.2d 23, 25 (1987) ("The credibility of the witnesses is for the triers of fact."); seealsoBruno v. State, 347 S.C. 446, 556 S.E.2d 3......
-
Steele v. Dillard, 2675
...caprice, prejudice, or some other influence outside the evidence, the trial judge must grant a new trial absolute"); Craven v. Cunningham, 292 S.C. 441, 357 S.E.2d 23 (1987) (the trial court's decision not to grant a new trial nisi will not be disturbed unless the amount of a verdict is eit......
-
Daves v. Cleary
...Stewart v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 341 S.C. 143, 156, 533 S.E.2d 597, 604 (Ct.App.2000). The case of Craven v. Cunningham, 292 S.C. 441, 357 S.E.2d 23 (1987) presents facts similar to the instant case. Mr. Craven was injured in an automobile accident caused by Cunningham. Mr. Craven......