O'Reilly v. Starnes

THIS OPINION
HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE.  IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN
ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 239(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

In The Court of Appeals

Bernie O’Reilly, Appellant,

v.

J.G. Starnes and
Johnny Ray Starnes d/b/a Starnes Well Drilling, Respondents.

Appeal From Aiken County

 Doyet A. Early, III, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2008-UP-318

Submitted June 2, 2008 – Filed June 25,
2008

AFFIRMED

A. Shane Massey, of Aiken, for Appellant.

Tom G. Woodruff, Jr., of Aiken, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  In
this action for breach of contract, Bernie O’Reilly appeals the trial court’s
order granting respondent’s motion for a new trial nisi remittitur. 

We affirm[1] the order of the trial court pursuant to Rule 220(b)(2), SCACR, and the
following authorities: Weaver v. Lentz, 348 S.C. 672, 682, 561 S.E.2d 360,
365 (Ct. App. 2002) (the trial court has wide discretionary power to reduce the
amount of a verdict which it finds to be excessive);  Chapman v. Upstate RV
& Marine, 364 S.C. 82, 88-89, 610 S.E.2d 852, 856 (Ct. App. 2005) (the
grant or denial of new trial motion rests within the discretion of the trial
court, and its decision will not be disturbed on appeal unless the findings are
wholly unsupported by the evidence or the conclusions reached are controlled by
error of law); Proctor v. Dept. of Health and Envtl. Control, 368 S.C.
279, 320, 628 S.E.2d 496, 518 (Ct. App. 2006) (great deference is given to the
trial judge who saw and heard the evidence and who, as a result, possessed a
better-informed view of the damages than the reviewing court).  While we may
not have taken the same approach, we cannot say that the trial court abused its
discretion because the nature and extent of the parties’ agreement was at issue
during the trial.

AFFIRMED.

WILLIAMS,
THOMAS, and PIEPER, JJ., concur.

[1] We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to
Rule 215, SCACR.