Opinion
2014-UP-311
08-06-2014
Galisa S. Mitioglo, Appellant, v. William F. Voyles, Respondent.
Donald Loren Smith, of Attorney Office of Donald Smith, of Anderson, for Appellant. Langdon Cheves, III, of Turner Padget Graham & Laney, PA, of Greenville, for Respondent.
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Submitted July 1, 2014
Appeal From Anderson County R. Lawton McIntosh, Circuit Court Judge No. 2013-000019
Donald Loren Smith, of Attorney Office of Donald Smith, of Anderson, for Appellant.
Langdon Cheves, III, of Turner Padget Graham & Laney, PA, of Greenville, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM
Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: Duncan v. Hampton Cnty. Sch. Dist. No. 2, 335 S.C. 535, 547, 517 S.E.2d 449, 455 (Ct. App. 1999) ("The trial court must grant a new trial absolute if the verdict is so grossly excessive that it shocks the conscience of the court and clearly indicates the amount of the verdict was the result of caprice, passion, prejudice, partiality, corruption, or other improper motive. Alternatively, the trial court may grant a new trial absolute when, sitting as the thirteenth juror, it concludes the jury's verdict is not supported by the evidence. However, [t]he jury's determination of damages is entitled to substantial deference. On appeal, the appellate court reviews a denial of a new trial motion for an abuse of discretion. The appellate court will not reverse the trial court's decision unless it is controlled by an error of law or is not supported by the evidence." (alteration in original) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)).
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.
HUFF, THOMAS, and MCDONALD, JJ., concur.