Morris v. King

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

In The Court of Appeals

Richard Morris,       
Appellant,

v.

Jerri W. King,       
Respondent.

Appeal From Horry County

John L. Breeden, Jr., Circuit Court
Judge

Unpublished Opinion No.  2003-UP-432 

Submitted June 9, 2003 – Filed June
24, 2003

AFFIRMED

William Isaac Diggs, of Myrtle Beach,  for Appellant.

Linda Weeks Gangi, of Conway,  for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Richard Morris appeals a jury
verdict for Jerri W. King, alleging the trial court erred in refusing his motion
for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or, alternatively, for a new trial. 
We affirm. [1]

We affirm the trial court denying Morris’s motion
for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or, alternatively, for a new trial
pursuant to Rule 220(b)(2), SCACR, and the following authorities:  1) regarding
the trial court’s denial of Morris’s judgment notwithstanding the verdict: 
Rule 50(a) & (b), SCRCP (providing that when a judgment notwithstanding
the verdict is granted, the verdict of the jury is set aside and judgment is
entered in accordance with the party’s directed verdict motion); Smith v.
Ridgeway Chem., Inc., 302 S.C. 303, 305-06, 395 S.E.2d 742, 743-44 (Ct.
App. 1990) (holding that a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict is
available to a party suffering an adverse jury verdict only when the same issues
were first presented to the trial court in a motion for a directed verdict at
the close of all the evidence); Johnson v. Hoechst Celanese Corp., 317
S.C. 415, 420, 453 S.E.2d 908, 911 (Ct. App. 1995) (holding that a judgment
notwithstanding the verdict may not be granted if the moving party fails to
make a directed verdict motion at the close of all the evidence); accord
Hendrix v. Eastern Distrib., Inc., 316 S.C. 34, 37, 446 S.E.2d 440, 442
(Ct. App. 1994), aff’d in part and vacated in part, 320 S.C. 218, 464
S.E.2d 112 (1995); Smith, 302 S.C. at 305-06, 395 S.E.2d at 743-44 (“Inasmuch
as no motion was made for a directed verdict at the conclusion of the trial,
no motion for relief as a matter of law is available after the jury verdict.”);
Mize v. Blue Ridge Ry. Co., 219 S.C. 119, 129-30, 64 S.E.2d 253, 258
(1951) (stating that an issue not raised by the appellant at trial is not preserved
for appeal even though the issue was discussed by the trial court); 2) regarding
the trial court’s denial of Morris’s motion for a new trial: Wilder Corp.
v. Wilke, 330 S.C. 71, 76, 497 S.E.2d 731, 733 (1998) (holding that a specific
argument that was neither raised to nor ruled upon by the trial court is not
properly preserved for consideration on appeal); accord Creech v.
S.C. Wildlife & Marine Res. Dep’t, 328 S.C. 24, 33-34, 491 S.E.2d 571,
576 (1997); Taylor v. Medenica, 324 S.C. 200, 216, 479 S.E.2d 35, 43
(1996); Merritt v. Grant, 285 S.C. 150, 154, 328 S.E.2d 346, 349 (Ct.
App. 1985); McEntire v. Mooreguard Exterminating Servs., 353 S.C. 629,
632, 578 S.E.2d 746, 747 (Ct. App. 2003) (holding that a directed verdict motion
is a prerequisite to a motion for a new trial on the ground the verdict is against
the evidence) (citing Peay v. Ross, 292 S.C. 535, 536, 357 S.E.2d 482,
483 (Ct. App. 1987)); accord Marsh v. S.C. Dep’t of Highways &
Pub. Transp., 298 S.C. 420, 423, 380 S.E.2d 867, 869 (Ct. App. 1989).

AFFIRMED.

GOOLSBY and HOWARD, JJ., and BEATTY,
A.J., concur.

[1]   Because oral argument would not aid the court
in resolving the issues on appeal, we decide this case without oral argument
pursuant to Rules 215 and 220(b)(2), SCACR.