O'Neal v. Bowles
Docket: 23800
Court: Supreme Court of South Carolina; February 15, 1998; South Carolina; State Supreme Court
An appeal was filed by Daniel L. O’Neal following the trial court's denial of his motion for a new trial nisi additur after a jury awarded him $12,500 in damages for injuries resulting from a motorcycle accident and subsequent surgery performed by Dr. Robert H. Bowles. O’Neal's leg injury had led to the severing of his peroneal nerve during the initial surgery, necessitating a second operation. O’Neal sought damages for medical expenses, lost wages, and a claimed permanent impairment of his leg. The appeal focused on whether the trial court erred in denying the new trial motion, which is within the discretion of the trial judge. The judge may grant such a motion if the verdict is deemed grossly inadequate or influenced by prejudice. However, compelling reasons must be provided for overriding the jury’s decision. Key facts included O’Neal's loss of his job as a lieutenant in the Sullivan’s Island Police Department due to inability to work after the accident. He was later rehired as a lower-ranking patrolman. Testimony regarding the duration of his recovery fluctuated, with O’Neal claiming he was told he could return to work in six to eight weeks, while Dr. Bowles indicated it would be six to eight months. Additionally, expert testimonies conflicted regarding the cause of O’Neal's claimed permanent impairment. The court referenced a similar case, Boozer v. Boozer, where a new trial was also denied due to the jury's reasonable determination based on presented evidence. The jury, in O’Neal's case, could have concluded that his job loss was not solely attributable to Dr. Bowles' actions and that any impairment was related to the fracture rather than the nerve injury. The $12,500 verdict was deemed not grossly inadequate given the evidence. Consequently, the trial court’s denial of O’Neal's motion for a new trial nisi additur was affirmed.