Case Details
- Status
- Published
- Procedural Posture
- summary judgment
Related Laws
No specific laws identified for this ruling.
Excerpt
This case involves a property dispute on Seabrook Island between neighbors Richard and Eugenia Ralph ("the Ralphs"), and Paul and Susan McLaughlin ("the McLaughlins"). The dispute in question concerns the destruction of a drainage easement by the McLaughlins that, the Ralphs allege, exacerbated drainage issues on the Ralphs' property. At trial, the jury found for the Ralphs on their cause of action for trespass and awarded them $1,000 in nominal damages. On appeal, the Ralphs argue the circuit court erred in 1) failing to apply the rulings and factual determinations from a previous grant of summary judgment to a third-party defendant as the law of the case 2) entering a directed verdict for the McLaughlins on the issue of punitive damages 3) failing to find the McLaughlins trespassed as a matter of law and 4) failing to grant the Ralphs a new trial absolute, a new trial nisi additur, or a new trial on damages. We reverse and remand the case for a new trial on compensatory damages and punitive damages.
Similar Rulings
Appellant Wanda Whetstone was injured in a car accident and filed a claim against the alleged at-fault driver, Karen Campbell. After settling with Campbell individually, Appellant filed a lawsuit against Campbell's employer, the Respondent, under the South Carolina Tort Claims Act. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Respondent, finding Appellant was prohibited from bringing an action under the Tort Claims Act against Campbell's employer after settling with Campbell individually. This appeal followed.
Facing something similar at work?
Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.
This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.