Smith v. Phillips
| Citation | 458 S.E.2d 427,318 S.C. 453 |
| Decision Date | 02 May 1995 |
| Docket Number | No. 24256,24256 |
| Parties | Donald E. SMITH and Mary S. Mercer, Petitioners, v. Robert B. PHILLIPS, Andrew F. Phillips, and Opal B. Phillips, Respondents. . Heard |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina |
Donald E. Smith and Mary S. Mercer, Charlotte, pro se.
Desa A. Ballard and L. Joel Chastain, of Ness, Motley, Loadholt, Richardson & Poole, Barnwell, for respondents.
We granted certiorari to review the Court of Appeals' decision in Johnson v. Phillips, 315 S.C. 407, 433 S.E.2d 895 (Ct.App.1993). 1 We affirm the holding that reinstates respondents' (Phillips') counterclaim, but reverse the Court of Appeals in so far as it ordered a new trial on petitioners' (Developer's) nuisance claims, and reversed the mandatory injunction. We remand for further proceedings on the counterclaim and the request for injunctive relief.
This is a dispute between adjoining landowners over water damage to both properties allegedly caused by the unlawful actions of the neighbor. Developer owns the upland property while Phillips owns the lower tract. The allegations include claims that Developer improperly collected and cast surface water upon Phillips property, and that the Phillips unlawfully blocked surface water and natural water course water, causing it to back up on Developer's property. See Johnson v. Phillips, supra, for a more extensive discussion of the facts; see also Johnson v. Williams, 238 S.C. 623, 121 S.E.2d 223 (1961), for a discussion of the principles applicable to surface water and natural water course water.
The jury found for Developer on his two nuisance claims but awarded him zero damages. The trial judge directed a verdict against Phillips on their counterclaim, and issued a mandatory injunction requiring them to remove certain obstructions on their property. Phillips appealed, but the Developer did not.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals sua sponte raised the issue of the propriety of a jury verdict in a nuisance claim finding liability but no damages. It concluded that such an inconsistent verdict imposed a duty on the trial judge to reject it and to reinstruct the jury even where, as here, there was no objection by either party. Further, the Court of Appeals concluded that it could reach this issue on appeal, even though it had not been raised at trial nor had it been raised on appeal. Both these holdings are erroneous and are reversed.
It is well settled that, but for a very few exceptional situations not present here, 2 an appellate court cannot address an issue unless it was raised to, and ruled upon by, the trial court. Beaufort County v. Butler, 316 S.C. 465, 451 S.E.2d 386 (1994). The Court of Appeals erred in reaching this issue. Further, we hold there is no duty imposed on the trial judge to question a jury's verdict of liability, but no damages, unless requested to by a party. We reinstate the jury verdicts on the nuisance claims.
The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's directed verdict on Phillips' counterclaim. We...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Vinson v. Hartley
...or incomplete verdict. Johnson v. Phillips, 315 S.C. 407, 433 S.E.2d 895 (Ct.App.1993), rev'd in part on other grounds, 318 S.C. 453, 458 S.E.2d 427 (1995). When the jury returns a To permit the court to "correct" or "construe" a jury finding of no damages would, as a practical matter, disp......
-
Anonymous (M-156-90) v. State Bd. of Medical Examiners
...of pretrial publicity was not preserved, where defendant did not object to his absence from pretrial hearing); Smith v. Phillips, 318 S.C. 453, 458 S.E.2d 427 (1995) (but for very few exceptional situations, appellate court cannot address issue unless it was raised to, and ruled upon by, tr......
-
Creighton v. Coligny Plaza Ltd.
...Thus, this issue is not preserved and the Creightons are barred from raising it for the first time on appeal. See Smith v. Phillips, 318 S.C. 453, 458 S.E.2d 427 (1995) (appellate court cannot address issue unless it is raised to and ruled on by trial Juror Mims After the jury was selected ......
-
I'ON, LLC v. Town of Mt. Pleasant
...to the lower court and obtain a ruling before an appellate court will review those issues and arguments. E.g., Smith v. Phillips, 318 S.C. 453, 458 S.E.2d 427 (1995) (appellate court generally will not address an issue unless the issue was raised to and ruled upon by the trial court); State......