Willis v. Floyd Brace Co., Inc., No. 0004

• Court: Court of Appeals of South Carolina
• Writing for the Court: SANDERS
• Citation: 309 S.E.2d 295,279 S.C. 458
• Parties: James A. WILLIS, Respondent, v. FLOYD BRACE CO., INC., Appellant.
• Docket Number: No. 0004
• Decision Date: 14 November 1983

Page 295

309 S.E.2d 295 279 S.C. 458 James A. WILLIS, Respondent,
v.
FLOYD BRACE CO., INC., Appellant. No. 0004. Court of Appeals of South Carolina. Nov. 14, 1983.

Page 296

[279 S.C. 459] Joseph R. Young, of Young, Clement, Rivers & Tisdale, Charleston, for appellant.

Arnold S. Goodstein, of Goodstein, Bowling, Douglas & Philips, Charleston, for respondent.

[279 S.C. 460] SANDERS, Chief Judge.

This is an action for personal injuries suffered by respondent Willis, allegedly resulting from a defective leg brace manufactured and supplied to him by the appellant Brace Company. Trial of the case resulted

Page 297

in a jury verdict for both actual and punitive damages. The Brace Company appeals, contending it is not liable for either damages as a matter of law. We affirm.

In deciding this case on appeal, we are bound by the scope of review repeatedly prescribed by our Supreme Court in interpreting Article V, Section 5 of the South Carolina Constitution. This is most succinctly stated in the landmark decision of Townes Associates, Ltd. v. City of Greenville, 266 S.C. 81, 221 S.E.2d 773, 775 (1976):

In an action at law, on appeal of a case tried by a jury, the jurisdiction of this Court extends merely to the correction of errors of law, and a factual finding of the jury will not be disturbed unless a review of the record discloses that there is no evidence which reasonably supports the jury's findings. Odom v. Weathersbee, 225 S.C. 253, 81 S.E.2d 788 (1954).

The principle of law was quoted again in Stevens v. Sun Publishing Company, 270 S.C. 65, 240 S.E.2d 812, 814, cert. denied 436 U.S. 945, 98 S.Ct. 2847, 56 L.Ed.2d 786 (1978). In an appeal of this nature, the weight of the evidence presented at trial is not at issue. The issue before this Court is whether or not there is any evidence in the record which would reasonably support the contentions of the party prevailing at trial. Tisdale v. Kerr McGee Chemical Corporation, 266 S.C. 64, 221 S.E.2d 531 (1976). It was further stated in Bell v. Harrington Manufacturing Company, 265 S.C. 468, 219 S.E.2d 906, 908 (1975):

It is well established that reversal of a jury's verdict can only result when the only reasonable inference from evidence is contrary to the factual finding implicit in the verdict. (Citing Parnell v. Carolina Coca-Cola Bottling Company, 231 S.C. 426, 98 S.E.2d 834 [1957].

It is therefore our task simply to review the record of the [279 S.C. 461] trial court and determine whether or not there was any evidence supporting the jury verdict. We find the evidence as follows:

Willis, who had been crippled for most of his life by polio, testified that he purchased the brace in question from the Brace Company who fabricated it for him according to a prescription given by his medical doctor. He testified further that he later found the brace did not work properly, in that a certain lock which was supposed to secure the brace automatically when he straightened his leg to stand, did not always catch. Willis went on to testify that he took the brace back to the Brace Company and asked them to correct the problem, stating he was afraid the failure of the brace to lock would "throw" him forward and break his leg. According to Willis, the Brace Company always responded by telling him there was nothing wrong with the brace. Finally, Willis testified that there came a time when, as he had feared, the brace failed to lock upon his getting out of a car and caused him to fall and break his leg.

Willis also called an expert witness to testify in support of his allegation that the brace was defective. This expert held, among other positions, the directorship of Prosthetics and Orthotics at the...