Dills-Pittman v. Lowcountry Council of Government

THIS
OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE.  IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS
PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

In The Court of Appeals

Helen
Dills-Pittman, Appellant,

v.

Lowcountry
Council of Government, L. Chriswell Bickley, Jr., and Sherry Smith, Defendants,

Of Whom L.
Chriswell Bickley, Jr., is Respondent.

Appeal From Colleton County

Honorable George C. James, Circuit Court
Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2011-UP-432

Heard September 12, 2011 – Filed October
10, 2011

AFFIRMED

R. Thayer Rivers, Jr., of Ridgeland, for Appellant.

Kathryn Thomas, of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Helen Dills-Pittman filed an action
for civil conspiracy, negligence, and defamation against Lowcountry Council of
Governments (COG), L. Chriswell Bickley, Jr., and Sherry Smith arising from her
termination of employment at COG.  Dills-Pittman appeals the jury's verdict in
favor of Bickley, Jr., arguing the trial court erred in excluding testimony and
in its jury charge.  We affirm
pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities:

1. As to whether the trial
court erred in excluding testimony:  Fields v. Reg'l Med. Ctr. Orangeburg,
363 S.C. 19, 25-26, 609 S.E.2d 506, 509 (2005) (stating the admission or
exclusion of evidence is within the sound discretion of the trial court, and
the decision will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion); Bakala v.
Bakala, 352 S.C. 612, 632, 576 S.E.2d 156, 166 (2003) (holding that a judge
could not overrule the prior unappealed order of another judge, and it became
law of the case).

2.  As to whether the trial
court erred in charging the jury: Rule 51, SCRCP ("No party may assign as error the giving or
the failure to give an instruction unless he objects thereto before the jury
retires to consider its verdict, stating distinctly the matter to which he
objects and the grounds for his objection."); Creech v. S.C. Wildlife & Marine Res. Dep't,
328 S.C. 24, 35-36, 491 S.E.2d 571, 577 (1997) (concluding the failure to
timely request or object to a specific jury charge will constitute a waiver of
any right to complain on appeal of error in the charge).

AFFIRMED.

SHORT, WILLIAMS, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.