Miller v. Stark

THE STATE OF SOUTH
CAROLINA

In The Court of
Appeals

Joe Louis Miller, Sr., Individually and as Legal Guardian
of Joe Louis Miller, Jr., and Sophia Miller, both Minors,       
Appellant,

v.

Sherah L. Stark,       
Respondent.

Appeal From York County

Lee S. Alford, Circuit
Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion
No. 2004-UP-052

Submitted November
19, 2003 – Filed January 22, 2004

AFFIRMED

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

Ronnie Fred Craig, of Charlotte, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Joe Louis
Miller, Sr., individually and as legal guardian of Joe Miller, Jr. and Sophia
Miller, both minors, appeals the trial court’s denial of his motion for a
new trial absolute and challenges the sufficiency of the additur award.  We
affirm. [1]

FACTS

Miller brought a personal
injury action against Sherah Stark following a minor traffic accident.  The
case was tried to a jury and verdicts were returned in favor of Miller and
his two children in the amounts of $316, $202 and $202, respectively.  Miller
moved post-trial for a new trial nisi additur or, in the alternative, for
a new trial absolute. The judge denied his motion for a new trial, but granted
an additur of $35 to Miller and both of his two children.  Miller appeals
the court’s denial of his motion for a new trial absolute and challenges the
sufficiency of the additur award. 

Stark testified she was a few
cars back from the traffic signal behind Miller’s Cadillac when the light
turned green.  She let her foot off the brake without accelerating and looked
over her shoulder to check on a crying child when she rolled into the Cadillac. 
After the accident, Miller got out of the car, checked his rear bumper and
walked to a nearby service station to telephone the police.  Stark testified
Miller’s children continued to play and behave normally in the back seat of
his vehicle. 

EMS responded but no
one was taken to the hospital and Miller later drove his vehicle from the
scene.  Afterward, Miller and his children visited the emergency room.  Miller’s
head was examined and found to be atraumatic and normal.  Neither of the children
was given any medication. 

In her answer, Stark answer admitted
that a collision occurred, but denied that Miller and his children sustained
injuries to the extent they alleged in the complaint.  At the trial, Stark
essentially admitted liability while continuing to question the damages as
claimed by Miller. 

LAW/ANALYSIS

Miller argues the trial
court erred by failing to grant a new trial absolute based on inadequacy of
the verdict.  We disagree.

The amount of the verdict
is not so shockingly disproportionate to the injuries Miller or his children
sustained as to indicate “passion, caprice, prejudice, or some other influence
outside the evidence” motivated the jury’s decision.  O'Neal v. Bowles,
314 S.C. 525, 431 S.E.2d 555, 556 (1993).

Testimony revealed neither
Miller nor his children suffered any serious injury.  Indeed, Miller’s children
continued to play undisturbed in the rear seat of his car immediately after
the accident.  Although EMS was called to the scene, no one was taken to the
hospital.  Miller’s later trip to the emergency room revealed he suffered
no head injury and the children required no medication.  The jury awarded
damages to cover the cost of the initial emergency room visit and included
the EMS trip in Miller’s verdict.  The jury simply concluded that Miller did
not deserve costs for later medical treatments and awarded damages accordingly. 
As Miller noted in his brief, “the range of damages could have been from zero
to the sky.”  See Gamble v. Stevenson, 305 S.C. 104,
406 S.E.2d 350 (1991) (citing Fennell v. Littlejohn, 240 S.C. 189,
125 S.E.2d 408 (1962)) (The award of actual and punitive damages remains within
the discretion of the jury, as reviewed by the trial judge.) 

Miller also challenges
the sufficiency of the trial court’s additur award, arguing the trial court
abused its discretion by “speculating as to the methodology of the jury verdict.” 
We disagree.

A motion for a new trial nisi
additur is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial judge.  Graham
v. Whitaker, 282 S.C. 393, 321 S.E.2d 40 (1984).  We find no abuse of
discretion by the trial judge in determining an additional award of $35 for
Miller and the children.  It is clear to us that the trial judge carefully
considered Miller’s motion.  After all, he granted the amounts of the EMS
transport fees as part and parcel of costs directly arising out of the events
of the accident but, consistent with the jury’s reasoning, declined to extend
additur to cover later medical bills. 

AFFIRMED.

HUFF, STILWELL, and BEATTY, JJ., concur.

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