Deloris Campbell v. Cole B. Collins

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

Deloris Campbell, Appellant,

v.

Cole B. Collins, Respondent.

Appellate Case No. 2023-000707

Appeal From Dorchester County
Maite Murphy, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2025-UP-080
Submitted February 1, 2025 – Filed March 12, 2025

AFFIRMED

Johnny F. Driggers, of Johnny F. Driggers, Esq., of
Goose Creek; and Andrew Sims Radeker, of Radeker
Law, P.A., of Columbia, both for Appellant.

Penn Wickenberg Ely, of Clawson & Staubes, LLC, of
Daniel Island; and Timothy Alan Domin, of Charleston,
both for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Deloris Campbell appeals the trial court's order denying her
motion for a new trial following the jury's defense verdict. On appeal, Campbell
argues the verdict was the result of improper considerations, thus the trial court
erred in denying her motion for a new trial absolute. We affirm pursuant to Rule
220(b), SCACR.

We hold the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Campbell's
motion for a new trial absolute because the totality of the evidence supported the
jury's defense verdict, due to substantial questions regarding credibility at trial.
See Wright v. Craft, 372 S.C. 1, 36, 640 S.E.2d 486, 505 (Ct. App. 2006) ("[T]he
decision to grant a new trial is left to the sound discretion of the trial court and
generally will not be disturbed on appeal."); id. ("An abuse of discretion occurs
when the trial court's findings are wholly unsupported by the evidence or the
conclusions reached are controlled by an error of law."); Vinson v. Hartley, 324
S.C. 389, 404, 477 S.E.2d 715, 723 (Ct. App. 1996) ("The trial judge must grant a
new trial absolute if the amount of the verdict is grossly inadequate or excessive so
as to shock the conscience of the court and clearly indicates the figure reached was
the result of passion, caprice, prejudice, partiality, corruption or some other
improper motives."). The record reflects Campbell's testimony about what
happened during the accident was inconsistent, and by her own admission, she had
trouble with her memory. Although Campbell's and her doctors' testimonies show
the car accident contributed to her injuries, it was reasonable for the jury to doubt
the testimonies regarding causation because she failed to inform her doctors of her
prior foot and back pain. See Wright, 372 S.C. at 36, 640 S.E.2d at 505 ("In
deciding whether to assess error when a new trial motion is denied, this [c]ourt
must consider the testimony and reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most
favorable to the nonmoving party." (quoting Welch v. Epstein, 342 S.C. 279,
302-03, 536 S.E.2d 279, 420 (Ct. App. 2000))); Black v. Hodge, 306 S.C. 196, 198,
410 S.E.2d 595, 596 (Ct. App. 1991) (finding the jury did not have to believe
uncontradicted testimony and that witness credibility remained a question for the
jury); Vinson, 324 S.C. at 410, 477 S.E.2d at 726 (finding that because certain
inconsistencies arose during the defendant's and doctor's testimonies that
compromised their credibility, the jury could have determined the defendant's
medical bills were not the result of the accident).1

1
Although Campbell contends Collins, through his counsel's statements in opening
arguments, admitted to proximately causing at least some of her injuries, and thus
that concession supports her motion for a new trial absolute, we hold this issue is
not preserved for appellate review because Campbell never argued to the trial court
that Collins conceded the issue of proximate cause in his opening statement; rather,
she raised it for the first time on appeal. See I'On, L.L.C. v. Town of Mt. Pleasant,
338 S.C. 406, 422, 526 S.E.2d 716, 724 (2000) (holding there is a
"long-established preservation requirement that the losing party generally must
AFFIRMED. 2

WILLIAMS, C.J., and GEATHERS and TURNER, JJ., concur.

both present his issues and arguments to the lower court and obtain a ruling before
an appellate court will review those issues and arguments").
2
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.