Fernandez v. Brewer Foods

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

Ruby Fernandez, Appellant,

v.

Brewer Foods, Inc., Respondent.

Appeal From Allendale County

 Doyet A. Early, III, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No.  2009-UP-070

Submitted February 2, 2009 – Filed
February 9, 2009

AFFIRMED

R. Bentz Kirby and Glenn Walters, both of Orangeburg, for
Appellant.

John M. Grantland, E. Raymond Moore III and William H. Frye, all
of Columbia and Mark B. Tinsley, of Allendale, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Ruby Fernandez appeals the trial court's
dismissal of her negligence suit against Brewer Foods.  Fernandez argues the
trial court erred in granting Brewer Foods's motion for directed verdict and
prohibiting Fernandez from asking her expert witness a hypothetical question.  We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1),
SCACR, and the following authorities:  Armstrong
v. Food Lion, Inc., 371 S.C. 271, 276,
639 S.E.2d 50, 52 (2006) (holding the trial court's ruling will be reversed
only where no evidence supports the ruling or where the ruling is controlled by
an error of law); Gazes v. Dillard's Dep't Store, Inc., 341 S.C. 507, 514-15,
534 S.E.2d 306, 310 (Ct. App. 2000) (explaining a hypothetical question to an
expert must be based on facts supported by the evidence).

AFFIRMED.[1]

THOMAS, GEATHERS, JJ., and GOOLSBY, A.J., concur. 

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