Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Williams Ex Rel. Estate of Williams v. Robertson Gilchrist Construction Co.
Citations: 390 S.E.2d 483; 301 S.C. 153; 1990 S.C. App. LEXIS 26Docket: 1468
Court: Court of Appeals of South Carolina; March 12, 1990; South Carolina; State Appellate Court
In the wrongful death case of Emma Williams, as Administratrix of the Estate of Johnnie Williams, against Robertson Gilchrist Construction Company, the jury initially awarded $170,590, reflecting only the economic losses. Following a post-verdict motion by Williams, the trial judge granted a new trial nisi additur, increasing the verdict to $225,000. The central legal issue was whether a trial judge must explicitly find that a jury's verdict is grossly inadequate when granting such a motion. The trial revealed that Dr. Oliver Wood, an economist, testified to the economic loss of $170,590, while additional witnesses addressed non-economic losses, which the jury seemingly neglected. The trial judge concluded that the jury's award mirrored only the economic loss, failing to account for the funeral expenses and non-economic damages. The appellate court affirmed the trial judge's decision, agreeing that the jury disregarded key evidence, thus supporting the increase in the verdict without requiring an explicit finding of gross inadequacy. The court referenced prior rulings, indicating that an explicit finding is not necessary for granting a new trial nisi additur based on jury disregard. The court determined that it is sufficient for a judge to articulate reasons for finding a jury's award grossly inadequate, rather than explicitly stating this in the order. In the case at hand, the trial court's order granting a new trial nisi additur met this requirement by indicating the jury had disregarded the facts or instructions. If a party accepts the additur amount, they cannot appeal; if they do not, they have the right to a retrial. Emma Williams, as administratrix of Johnnie Williams' estate, was awarded $170,590 in damages but sought an additur or a new trial for additional damages. The trial court granted a new trial unless the construction company, Robertson Gilchrist, agreed to pay an additional $54,410 but did not set a deadline for this decision. Robertson Gilchrist appealed without making this choice and subsequently paid the original jury award. A dissenting opinion argued the appeal was premature since Robertson Gilchrist had not elected to accept the additur or opt for a new trial, referencing prior case law that supports this position. The dissent highlights that payment following the notice of appeal does not clarify their acceptance or rejection of the additur or the retrial option.