Green v. Fritz, 3715.
Decision Date | 15 December 2003 |
Docket Number | No. 3715.,3715. |
Citation | 356 S.C. 566,590 S.E.2d 39 |
Court | South Carolina Court of Appeals |
Parties | Mildred GREEN, Respondent, v. Jason FRITZ, Appellant. |
Donnell G. Jennings and R. Hawthorne Barrett, both of Columbia, for Appellant.
Zack E. Townsend, of Orangeburg, for Respondent.
Mildred Green sued Jason Fritz to recover damages for bodily injuries suffered during an automobile accident. The jury returned a verdict for Green in the amount of $1,500.00 in actual damages and $500.00 in punitive damages. Green moved for a new trial nisi additur. The trial judge granted the motion, increasing the total award to $14,000.00. Fritz appeals, asserting, inter alia, the motion was improvidently granted because the trial judge failed to articulate compelling reasons to invade the province of the jury. We reverse and reinstate the jury verdict.
Fritz was attempting to turn left out of a gas station parking lot. To execute the turn and join left-bound traffic, Fritz had to cross three lanes of right-bound traffic. A vehicle in the closest right-bound lane slowed and signaled for Fritz to proceed, which he did. After successfully crossing two lanes of traffic, however, Fritz collided with Green.
The EMS crew that responded to the accident took Green by ambulance to the Orangeburg Regional Medical Center. Green, who had a history of high blood pressure and diabetes, was kept overnight for the purpose of monitoring her blood sugar and blood pressure. During her stay at the hospital, Green did not complain of, and was not treated for, neck, back, or muscle pain.
Green took two days off from work after the accident, though she testified that the pain in her neck and back persisted after that period. Four weeks after the accident, Green sought treatment from Dr. Shay, a chiropractor. Dr. Shay diagnosed Green with cervical subluxation.1 The treatment lasted approximately four weeks and cost a total of $1,470.00.
Green brought this negligence action against Fritz, seeking to recover damages sustained in the accident. During opening remarks at trial, Fritz's attorney admitted fault. Green's chiropractor testified about the extent of Green's back injuries. On cross-examination, defense counsel challenged the causal link between the accident and Green's subluxation diagnosis. Specifically, Dr. Shay was asked whether Green's back injury could have been caused by something other than the car accident, and Dr. Shay admitted that was possible. Green did not claim to experience any accident-related problems subsequent to her treatment with Dr. Shay. She also did not claim to have sustained any permanent injuries as a result of the accident.
Following the jury's verdict, Green moved for a new trial nisi additur, arguing that the verdict was grossly inadequate and that "it had to be compassion, prejudice or something of that nature, some other outside influence." The trial court granted Green's motion for a new trial nisi additur, increasing the jury's total award from $2,000.00 to $14,000.00. The order, in its entirety, reads as follows:
Did the trial court improperly grant Green's motion for a new trial nisi additur?
Fritz argues the trial judge erred when he granted the motion without articulating compelling reasons. We agree.
A trial judge may grant a new trial nisi additur when a jury's verdict is inadequate. Bailey, 318 S.C. at 14,455 S.E.2d at 691. However, to grant such relief, the trial judge must state compelling reasons for invading the province of the jury. Krepps v. Ausen, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Jolly v. Gen. Elec. Co.
...invading the jury's province by granting a motion for additur." (emphasis added) (citation omitted) (quoting Green v. Fritz , 356 S.C. 566, 570, 590 S.E.2d 39, 41 (Ct. App. 2003) )), aff'd , 385 S.C. 421, 685 S.E.2d 595 (2009).24 Here, the jury awarded $200,000 in compensatory damages to Da......
-
Jolly v. Gen. Elec. Co.
... ... (citation omitted) (quoting Green v. Fritz , 356 S.C ... 566, 570, 590 S.E.2d 39, 41 (Ct. App. 2003))), ... aff'd , 385 ... ...
-
Howard v. Roberson
...abused its discretion in deciding a motion for new trial nisi additur to the extent an error of law results. Green v. Fritz, 356 S.C. 566, 570, 590 S.E.2d 39, 41 (Ct.App.2003). LAW/ANALYSIS I. Directed Verdict Roberson argues the trial court erred in granting Howard a directed verdict motio......
-
Ralph v. McLaughlin
...[its] discretion in deciding a motion for new trial nisi additur to the extent that an error of law results." Green v. Fritz , 356 S.C. 566, 570, 590 S.E.2d 39, 41 (Ct. App. 2003). "The [circuit court] who heard the evidence and is more familiar with the evidentiary atmosphere at trial poss......