Opinion
2014-MO-014
05-28-2014
Ernest L. Cobb and Nancy Cobb, Respondents, v. Dan M. Lafoy, Appellant. Appellate Case No. 2012-212693
Robert Daniel Moseley, Jr., and Joseph William Rohe, both of Smith Moore Leatherwood, LLP of Greenville, for Appellant. Larry C. Brandt, of Larry C. Brandt, PA, of Walhalla, for Respondents.
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Heard March 6, 2014
Appeal from Oconee County Alexander S. Macaulay, Circuit Court Judge
Robert Daniel Moseley, Jr., and Joseph William Rohe, both of Smith Moore Leatherwood, LLP of Greenville, for Appellant.
Larry C. Brandt, of Larry C. Brandt, PA, of Walhalla, for Respondents.
PER CURIAM
We affirm the order granting a new trial under the Thirteenth Juror Doctrine since there is conflicting evidence in the record whether appellant was negligent. See e.g. Rivera v. Newton, 401 S.C. 402, 413, 737 S.E.2d 193, 198 (Ct. App. 2012)("As long as there is conflicting evidence, the trial court's grant of a new trial will not be disturbed."). We remind the parties that the evidentiary rulings made in the first trial, including whether there was evidence warranting a jury charge, do not "carryover" to the next proceeding. See e.g. Branham v. Ford Motor Co., 390 S.C. 203, 232, 701 S.E.2d 5, 20 (2010); Odom v. Steigerwald, 260 S.C. 422, 428, 196 S.E.2d 635, 638 (1973). Nothing in our decision today should be construed as reaching the issue whether the trial judge was correct in declining to charge the defense of sudden emergency.
AFFIRMED.
TOAL, C. J, PLEICONES, BEATTY, KITTREDGE and HEARN, JJ, concur