Error will not be presumed, all presumptions being in favor of the correctness of the judgment." Syllabus point 5, Morgan v. Price, 151 W. Va. 158, 150 S.E.2d 897 (1966).' Syl. pt. 1, M.W. Kellogg Co. v. Concrete Accessories Corp., 157 W. Va. 763, 204 S.E.2d 61 (1974).
As we have previously held, "[i]t is not error to refuse to give an instruction to the jury, though it states a correct and applicable principle of law, if the principle stated in the instruction refused is adequately covered by another instruction or other instructions given." Syl. Pt. 8, in part, State v. Hoard, 248 W.Va. 428, 889 S.E.2d 1 (2023) (quoting Syl. Pt. 3, Morgan v. Price, 151 W.Va. 158, 150 S.E.2d 897 (1966)). Based on the foregoing, we conclude that the instructions given by the court adequately covered the content of the petitioner's proffered instructions, and the court did not err in refusing to give the petitioner's instructions.
Error will not be presumed, all presumptions being in favor of the correctness of the judgment.' Syllabus Point 5, Morgan v. Price, 151 W.Va. 158, 150 S.E.2d 897 (1966)." Syllabus point 2, In re Visitation of L.M., 245 W.Va. 328, 859 S.E.2d 271 (2021).
Error will not be presumed, all presumptions being in favor of the correctness of the judgment.’ Syllabus Point 5, Morgan v. Price, 151 W.Va. 158, 150 S.E.2d 897 (1966).” Syllabus Point 2, WV Dept. of Health & Human Resources Employees Federal Credit Union v. Tennant, 215 W.Va. 387, 599 S.E.2d 810 (2004).
Error will not be presumed, all presumptions being in favor of the correctness of the judgment.’ Syllabus Point 5, Morgan v. Price, 151 W.Va. 158, 150 S.E.2d 897 (1966).” Syllabus Point 2, WV Dept. of Health & Human Resources Employees Federal Credit Union v. Tennant, 215 W.Va. 387, 599 S.E.2d 810 (2004).
Error will not be presumed, all presumptions being in favor of the correctness of the judgment.’ Syllabus Point 5, Morgan v. Price, 151 W.Va. 158, 150 S.E.2d 897 (1966).” Syllabus Point 2, WV Dept. of Health & Human Resources Employees Fed. Credit Union v. Tennant, 215 W.Va. 387, 599 S.E.2d 810 (2004).
Error will not be presumed, all presumptions being in favor of the correctness of the judgment. Syl. pt. 5, Morgan v. Price, 151 W.Va. 158, 150 S.E.2d 897 (1966) (emphasis added). Accord Syl. pt. 4, Alexander v. Jennings, 150 W.Va. 629, 149 S.E.2d 213 (1966) (“ ‘An Appellate Court will not reverse the judgment of an inferior court unless error affirmatively appear upon the face of the record, and such error will not be presumed, all the presumptions being in favor of the correctness of the judgment.
Error will not be presumed, all presumptions being in favor of the correctness of the judgment. Syl. pt. 5, Morgan v. Price, 151 W. Va. 158, 150 S.E.2d 897 (1966). Accord Syl. pt. 2, Perdue v. Coiner, 156 W. Va. 467, 194 S.E.2d 657 (1973) ("On an appeal to this Court the appellant bears the burden of showing that there was error in the proceedings below resulting in the judgment of which he complains, all presumptions being in favor of the correctness of the proceedings and judgment in and of the trial court.
Appellant cites several cases for her theory that Foodland had a duty to use reasonable care to see that its premises were safe for the use of business invitees. See id., 176 W. Va. at 747, 349 S.E.2d at 914; Cowan v. One Hour Valet, Inc., 151 W. Va. 941, 951-54, 157 S.E.2d 843, 848-50 (1967); Morgan v. Price, 151 W. Va. 158, 163-64, 150 S.E.2d 897, 901 (1966). Not one of the cases cited by appellant supports her position that Foodland's duty to keep its premises safe for the use of business invitees extended to the sidewalks adjacent to its facility.
"It is not error to refuse to give an instruction to the jury, though it states a correct and applicable principle of law, if the principle stated in the instruction refused is adequately covered by another instruction or other instructions given." Syl. pt. 3, Morgan v. Price, 151 W. Va. 158, 150 S.E.2d 897 (1966). Appellant also contends it was error for the court to refuse to give his Instruction No. 3, which would have told the jury that the presence, quantity and value of sand and gravel may be taken into consideration in ascertaining the value of land in condemnation proceedings.