Toole v. Toole, 19588
Citation | 260 S.C. 235,195 S.E.2d 389 |
Decision Date | 16 March 1973 |
Docket Number | No. 19588,19588 |
Court | United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina |
Parties | Rosa Lee TOOLE, as Administratrix of the Estate of Jimmie Toole, Appellant, v. Ada Mae TOOLE and Howard Toole, Jr., Respondents. |
F. Mikell Harper, Williston, Dufour & Dufour, Aiken, for appellant.
Henderson, Salley, Bodenheimer & Lynn, Aiken, for respondents.
In this guest-passenger, wrongful death action the jury returned a verdict for actual damages in the amount of $2,500.00. Contending that the verdict was 'completely and wholly inadequate', the appellant-plaintiff promptly moved for a new trial, and the appeal is from the denial of such motion. Relative to the damages involved, we quote the following from the agreed statement of the case:
It is well settled in this State that in actions for tort, where the verdict is grossly inadequate, a new trial may and should be granted for the same reasons and under the same principles as govern when a verdict is similarly excessive. Where a verdict gives grossly inadequate damages, it is as much a ground for a motion for a new trial by the plaintiff as a grossly excessive verdict would be a ground for such a motion by a defendant.
This Court has repeatedly quoted with approval from McDonald v. Walter, 40 N.Y. 551, the following language:
See Bodie v. Charleston & W.C.R. Co., 66 S.C. 302, 44 S.E. 943, 947; McKibben v. Anthony, 185 S.C. 459, 194 S.E. 446; Fuller v. Bailey, 237 S.C. 573, 118 S.E.2d 340.
Motions for a new trial on the ground of either excessiveness or inadequacy are addressed to the sound discretion of the trial judge. His exercise of such discretion, however, is not absolute and it is the duty of this Court in a proper case to review and determine whether there has been an abuse of discretion amounting to error of law. Williams v. Williams, 246 S.C. 158, 142 S.E.2d 858. The respondents contend that the question of whether the verdict was so grossly inadequate as to indicate 'caprice, prejudice, passion or other improper considerations on the part of the jury' is not presently before us because counsel for the plaintiff-appellant did not use those magic words in making his motion for a new trial.
An analysis of our pertinent decisions suggests that such contention is simply an exercise in semantics without any significance of substance. Appropriate, we think, is the following comment in the opinion of Grimsley v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 189 S.C. 251, 1 S.E.2d 157, 161:
Counsel making the motion said that 'the amount of the verdict is inadequate, completely and wholly inadequate, for the wrongful death of the child' and that the jury 'did not properly understand the elements of damage in considering the case.' While counsel did not use the words 'caprice, passion or prejudice', 'a verdict may properly be said to be capricious if it is against the overwhelming weight of the evidence.'...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Ravan v. Greenville County
... ... Clarkson, 267 S.C. 121, 126, 226 S.E.2d 696, 697 ... Page 302 ... (1976); Toole v. Toole, 260 S.C. 235, 239, 195 S.E.2d 389, 390 (1973). The test which guides this Court in the ... ...
-
Griffin v. Griffin
...in the exercise of his discretion, may grant a new trial upon the ground that the verdict is grossly inadequate. Toole v. Toole, 260 S.C. 235, 195 S.E.2d 389 (1973); Fuller v. Bailey, 237 S.C. 573, 118 S.E.2d 340 (1961). The exercise of that discretion, however, may be reviewed by the Court......
-
Krepps by Krepps v. Ausen
...show the jury was moved by considerations not founded on the evidence and/or the instructions of the trial judge. Toole v. Toole, 260 S.C. 235, 195 S.E.2d 389 (1973). heard the evidence and is more familiar with the evidentiary atmosphere at trial, possesses a better-informed view of the da......
-
Stevens v. Allen
...314 S.C. 525, 431 S.E.2d 555 (1993). 3. Notably, Woodbury specifically declined to adopt the South Carolina approach of Toole v. Took, 260 S.C. 235, 195 S.E.2d 389 (1973) (holding jury's $2500.00 verdict in the plaintiff's wrongful death action for the death of their 11 year old son was who......