Hartfield v. Getaway Lounge Grill

6 Citing cases

  1. Jenkins v. CEC Entm't Inc.

    421 F. Supp. 3d 257 (D.S.C. 2019)   Cited 1 times

    The Court notes that under South Carolina law, liability under the statute attaches where a person "knowingly" sells beer or wine to an intoxicated person without requirement as to whether the patron was visibly intoxicated. Hartfield v. Getaway Lounge & Grill, Inc. , 388 S.C. 407, 697 S.E.2d 558, 564 (2010) (declining to "adopt a new standard allowing for liability only where the intoxicated person is visibly intoxicated"). Nonetheless, the Court agrees that Plaintiffs have not produced any evidence demonstrating that Defendants served Mr. King knowing that he was intoxicated.

  2. Roddey v. Wal–Mart Stores E., LP

    400 S.C. 59 (S.C. Ct. App. 2012)   Cited 3 times

    “A motion for a directed verdict goes to the entire case and may be granted only when the evidence raises no issue for the jury as to liability.” Hartfield v. Getaway Lounge & Grill, Inc., 388 S.C. 407, 415, 697 S.E.2d 558, 562 (2010). The trial court should be concerned only with the existence or nonexistence of evidence, and not with the credibility or weight of the evidence.

  3. Roddey v. Wal-Mart Stores East, LP

    Appellate Case No. 2010-163426 (S.C. Ct. App. Aug. 29, 2012)

    "A motion for a directed verdict goes to the entire case and may be granted only when the evidence raises no issue for the jury as to liability." Hartfield v. Getaway Lounge & Grill, Inc., 388 S.C. 407, 415, 697 S.E.2d 558, 562 (2010). The trial court should be concerned only with the existence or nonexistence of evidence, and not with the credibility or weight of the evidence.

  4. West v. Morehead

    396 S.C. 1 (S.C. Ct. App. 2011)   Cited 10 times

    We find the trial court's ruling was within its discretion. See Hartfield v. Getaway Lounge & Grill, Inc., 388 S.C. 407, 413, 697 S.E.2d 558, 561 (2010) (“The admission of evidence is within the sound discretion of the trial judge and will not be reversed absent a clear abuse of discretion.”). VI. Conclusion

  5. West v. Morehead

    Opinion No. 4887 (S.C. Ct. App. Sep. 7, 2011)

    We find the trial court's ruling was within its discretion. SeeHartfield v. GetawayLounge Grill, Inc., 388 S.C. 407, 413, 697 S.E.2d 558, 561 (2010) ("The admission of evidence is within the sound discretion of the trial judge and will not be reversed absent a clear abuse of discretion."). VI. Conclusion

  6. Burke v. Anmed Health

    393 S.C. 48 (S.C. Ct. App. 2011)   Cited 40 times
    Finding a contemporaneous objection is typically required to preserve issues for appellate review

    We find that the trial court was within its discretion to admit the evidence as context for the jury to understand the injury Ms. Burke suffered and the resulting damages. See Hartfield v. Getaway Lounge Grill,Inc., 388 S.C. 407, 413, 697 S.E.2d 558, 561 (2010) ("The admission of evidence is within the sound discretion of the trial judge and will not be reversed absent a clear abuse of discretion."). AnMed contends the trial court erred in denying its request to charge the jury: "A plaintiff in a medical malpractice action cannot recover damages for his or her original injury."