Johnson v. Beaufort County

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

Jeffrey Johnson and Kristina Johnson, Respondents,

v.

Beaufort County, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2012-206486

Appeal From Beaufort County
Michael G. Nettles, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2013-UP-473
Submitted November 1, 2013 – Filed December 18, 2013

AFFIRMED

Marshall H. Waldron, Jr., of Griffith, Sadler & Sharp,
P.A., of Beaufort, for Appellant.

Karl Stephen Brehmer and L. Darby Plexico, III, both of
Brown & Brehmer, of Columbia, for Respondents.

PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following
authorities: McBride v. Sch. Dist. of Greenville Cnty., 389 S.C. 546, 558, 698
S.E.2d 845, 851 (Ct. App. 2010) ("In ruling on a directed verdict motion, the trial
court must view the evidence and the inferences reasonably drawn from the
evidence in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion. The trial
court must deny the motion[ ] when the evidence yields more than one inference or
an inference is in doubt." (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)); Parrish
v. Allison, 376 S.C. 308, 319, 656 S.E.2d 382, 388 (Ct. App. 2007) ("When
considering directed verdict motions, neither the trial court nor the appellate court
has authority to decide credibility issues or to resolve conflicts in the testimony or
evidence."); Moriarty v. Garden Sanctuary Church of God, 341 S.C. 320, 337, 534
S.E.2d 672, 680 (2000) ("The law makes absolutely no distinction between the
weight or value to be given to either direct or circumstantial evidence." (internal
quotation marks omitted)); Mahaffey v. Ahl, 264 S.C. 241, 248, 214 S.E.2d 119,
122 (1975) ("A driver's failure to keep a proper lookout and maintain his vehicle
under proper control are normally questions to be resolved by the jury.").

AFFIRMED.1

HUFF, GEATHERS, and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.

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