O'Neal v. Bowles, 431 S.E.2d 555 (S.C. 1993). · Go Syfert
Search
O'Neal v. Bowles, 431 S.E.2d 555 (S.C. 1993). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 3× by 3 distinct cases, 2003–2012 · 2 courts · …if the amount of the verdict is grossly inadequate or excessive so as to be the result of passion, caprice, prejudice, or some other influence outside the evidence, the trial judge must grant a new trial absolute. ✓
204 citation events (120 in the last 25 years) across 6 distinct courts.
Treatment trajectory · 1993 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1993 2009 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 42 distinct citers. How cited ↗
examined Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Henderson v. Greer (2×) also: Cited as authority (quoted)
S.C. Ct. App. · 2016 · quote attribution · 2 verbatim quotes · confidence high
therefore, on appeal of the denial of a motion for a new trial nisi, this court will reverse when the verdict is grossly inadequate or excessive requiring the granting of a new trial absolute.
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Vinson v. Jackson
S.C. Ct. App. · 1994 · signal: cf. · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
n appeal of the denial of a motion for a new trial nisi, this court will reverse when the verdict is grossly inadequate or excessive requiring the granting of a new trial absolute.
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) Collins Entertain v. Leisure Times Tech
4th Cir. · 1999 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
drews interfered with collins entertainment's exclusive distributorship agreement that was in effect from may 3, 1992 through october 8, 1993. . . .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Gerald Nelson v. Christopher S. Harris
S.C. Ct. App. · 2023 · confidence medium
The trial court alone has the power to grant a new trial nisi when it "finds the amount of the verdict to be merely inadequate or excessive." O'Neal v. Bowles, 314 S.C. 525, 527 , 431 S.E.2d 555, 556 (1993); see also Carson v. CSX Transp., Inc., 400 S.C. 221, 241 , 734 S.E.2d 148 , 158–59 (2012) (noting appellate court's "abuse of discretion standard for reviewing a circuit court's decision to deny a new trial nisi additur").
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Tekayah Hamilton v. Regional Medical Center
S.C. Ct. App. · 2023 · confidence medium
"The failure of the trial [court] to grant a new trial absolute in this situation amounts to an abuse of discretion and on appeal this [c]ourt will grant a new trial absolute." O'Neal v. Bowles, 314 S.C. 525, 527 , 431 S.E.2d 555, 556 (1993).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Hassell v. City of Columbia
S.C. Ct. App. · 2020 · confidence medium
"If the amount of the verdict is grossly inadequate or excessive so as to be the result of passion, caprice, prejudice, or some other influence outside the evidence, the trial judge must grant a new trial absolute." Harrison v. Bevilacqua, 354 S.C. 129, 140 , 580 S.E.2d 109, 115 (2003) (quoting O'Neal v. Bowles, 314 S.C. 525, 527 , 431 S.E.2d 555, 556 (1993)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Jackson v. Edgefield Medical Clinic
S.C. Ct. App. · 2016 · confidence medium
As to whether the trial court erred in denying Jackson's motion for a new trial nisi additur: Waring v. Johnson, 341 S.C. 248, 257 , 533 S.E.2d 906, 911 (Ct. App. 2000) ("The consideration of a motion for a new trial nisi additur requires the court to consider the adequacy of the verdict in light of the evidence presented."); O'Neal v. Bowles, 314 S.C. 525, 527 , 431 S.E.2d 555, 556 (1993) ("The denial of a motion for a new trial nisi is within the trial judge's discretion and will not be reversed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion."); Todd v. Joyner, 385 S.C. 509, 517-18 , 685 S.E.2d 613…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Riley Ex Rel. Estate of Riley v. Ford Motor Co.
S.C. · 2015 · confidence medium
“When the verdict indicates that the jury was unduly liberal or conservative in its view of the damages, the trial judge alone has the power to [alter] the verdict by the granting of a new trial nisi.” Id. at 531, 431 S.E.2d at 558 (citing O’Neal v. Bowles, 314 S.C. 525, 527 , 431 S.E.2d 555, 556 (1993)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Gaines v. Campbell
S.C. Ct. App. · 2015 · confidence medium
O'Neal v. Bowles, 314 S.C. 525, 527 , 431 S.E.2d 555, 556 (1993).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Riley v. Ford Motor Co.
S.C. Ct. App. · 2014 · confidence medium
See also Todd v. Joyner, 385 S.C. 509, 517 , 685 S.E.2d 613, 618 (Ct.App.2008), aff'd, 385 S.C. 421 , 685 S.E.2d 595 (2009); Jones v. Ingles Supermarkets, Inc., 293 S.C. 490, 493 , 361 S.E.2d 775, 777 (Ct.App.1987), overruled on other grounds by O’Neal v. Bowles, 314 S.C. 525, 527 , 431 S.E.2d 555, 556 (1993). .
examined Cited as authority (rule) Carson v. CSX Transportation, Inc. (5×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
S.C. · 2012 · confidence medium
See Historic Charleston Holdings, LLC v. Mallon, 381 S.C. 417, 434 , 673 S.E.2d 448, 457 (2009) (admission of evidence); Cole v. Raut, 378 S.C. 398, 404 , 663 S.E.2d 30, 33 (2008) (jury charge); O’Neal v. Bowles, 314 S.C. 525, 527 , 431 S.E.2d 555, 556 (1993) (nisi additur).
examined Cited as authority (rule) Wachovia Bank National Ass'n ex rel. Wachovia Bank, N.A. v. Beane (3×) also: Cited "see"
S.C. Ct. App. · 2012 · confidence medium
“If the amount of the verdict is grossly inadequate or excessive so as to be the result of passion, caprice, prejudice, or some other influence outside the evidence, the trial judge must grant a new trial absolute.” O’Neal v. Bowles, 314 S.C. 525, 527 , 431 S.E.2d 555, 556 (1993) (emphasis omitted); Curtis v. Blake, 392 S.C. 494, 500 , 709 S.E.2d 79, 82 (Ct.App.2011) (internal quotations marks omitted).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Luchok v. Vena
S.C. Ct. App. · 2010 · confidence medium
See also Todd v. Joyner, 385 S.C. 509, 517 , 685 S.E.2d 613, 618 (Ct.App.2008), aff'd, 385 S.C. 421 , 685 S.E.2d 595 (2009); Jones v. Ingles Supermarkets, Inc., 293 S.C. 490, 493 , 361 S.E.2d 775, 777 (Ct.App.1987), overruled on other grounds by O'Neal v. Bowles, 314 S.C. 525, 527 , 431 S.E.2d 555, 556 (1993). 4 .
cited Cited as authority (rule) Todd v. Joyner
S.C. Ct. App. · 2008 · confidence medium
O’Neal v. Bowles, 314 S.C. 525, 527 , 431 S.E.2d 555, 556 (1993).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Todd v. Joyner
S.C. Ct. App. · 2007 · confidence medium
O’Neal v. Bowles, 314 S.C. 525, 527 , 431 S.E.2d 555, 556 (1993).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Hughes v. Oconee County
S.C. Ct. App. · 2007 · confidence medium
Co. , 269 S.C. 322, 332-333 , 237 S.E.2d 375, 379-380 (1977) overruled on other grounds by O’Neal v. Bowles , 314 S.C. 525, 527 , 431 S.E.2d 555, 556 (1993); Fuller v. Easter Fire & Cas.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Ligon v. Norris
S.C. Ct. App. · 2006 · confidence medium
O’Neal v. Bowles, 314 S.C. 525, 527 , 431 S.E.2d 555, 556 (1993).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In Re Vioxx Products Liability Litigation
E.D. La. · 2006 · confidence medium
In South Carolina, a damage award is grossly excessive if it appears “to be the result of passion, caprice, prejudice, or some other influence outside the evidence.” O’Neal v. Bowles, 314 S.C. 525 , 431 S.E.2d 555, 556 (S.C.1993).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Proctor v. Department of Health & Environmental Control (2×)
S.C. Ct. App. · 2006 · confidence medium
“If the amount of the verdict is grossly inadequate or excessive so as to be the result of passion, caprice, prejudice, or some other influence outside the evidence, the trial judge must grant a new trial absolute.” Harrison v. Bevilacqua, 354 S.C. 129, 140 , 580 *321 S.E.2d 109, 115 (2003) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting O’Neal v. Bowles, 314 S.C. 525, 527 , 431 S.E.2d 555, 556 (1993)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Tindall v. H & S Homes
S.C. Ct. App. · 2005 · confidence medium
We disagree. “If the amount of the verdict is grossly inadequate or excessive so as to be the result of passion, caprice, prejudice, or some other influence outside the evidence, the trial judge must grant a new trial absolute.” O’Neal v. Bowles , 314 S.C. 525, 527 , 431 S.E.2d 555, 556 (1993).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Roddey v. NationsWaster, Inc.
S.C. Ct. App. · 2005 · confidence medium
O’Neal v. Bowles , 314 S.C. 525, 527 , 431 S.E.2d 555, 556 (1993).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) baril v. Aiken Regional Medical Centers
S.C. Ct. App. · 2005 · confidence medium
As to its request for a new trial absolute under the thirteenth juror doctrine, Hospital contended the jury’s questions regarding whether it was to determine if Baril were treated fairly indicate the jury did not understand the trial court’s instructions; therefore, the trial court should have granted a new trial under the thirteenth juror doctrine. “On appeal, this court presumes the jury awarded an amount of damages within its discretion and it views all the evidence and the inferences reasonably deducible therefrom in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict.” Howle v. PYA/Mon…
cited Cited as authority (rule) Hildreth v. County of Kershaw
S.C. Ct. App. · 2005 · confidence medium
O’Neal v. Bowles , 314 S.C. 525, 526 , 431 S.E.2d 555, 557 (1993).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Hilton Head Resort v. Bergman
S.C. Ct. App. · 2004 · confidence medium
O’Neal v. Bowles , 314 S.C. 525, 527 , 431 S.E.2d 555, 556 (1993).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Miller v. Stark
S.C. Ct. App. · 2004 · confidence medium
O'Neal v. Bowles , 314 S.C. 525 , 431 S.E.2d 555, 556 (1993).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Simpkins v. Bennett
S.C. Ct. App. · 2004 · confidence medium
O’Neal v. Bowles , 314 S.C. 525, 526 , 431 S.E.2d 555, 557 (1993).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Harrison v. Bevilacqua
S.C. · 2003 · confidence medium
“If the amount of the verdict is grossly inadequate or excessive so as to be the result of passion, caprice, prejudice, or some other influence outside the evidence, the trial judge must grant a new trial absolute.” O’Neal v. Bowles, 314 S.C. 525, 527 , 431 S.E.2d 555, 556 (1993) (emphasis in the original).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Vick v. South Carolina Department of Transportation
S.C. Ct. App. · 2001 · confidence medium
“The trial judge alone has the power to grant a new trial nisi when he finds the amount of the verdict to be merely inadequate or excessive.” O’Neal v. Bowles, 314 S.C. 525, 527 , 431 S.E.2d 555, 556 (1993).
examined Cited as authority (rule) Smalls v. South Carolina Department of Education (3×) also: Cited "see"
S.C. Ct. App. · 2000 · confidence medium
Id. at 527 , 431 S.E.2d at 556 (emphasis in the original).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Elder v. Gaffney Ledger, Inc.
S.C. Ct. App. · 1999 · confidence medium
O’Neal v. Bowles, 314 S.C. 525, 527 , 431 S.E.2d 555, 556 (1993); Allstate Ins.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Kalchthaler v. Workman (2×)
S.C. Ct. App. · 1994 · confidence medium
O’Neal v. Bowles, — S.C. —, —, 431 S.E. (2d) 555, 556 (1993).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Stroud v. Elliott
S.C. Ct. App. · 1994 · confidence medium
O’Neal v. Bowles, — S.C. —, —, 431 S.E. (2d) 555, 556 (1993).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Allstate Insurance v. Durham
S.C. · 1993 · confidence medium
O’Neal v. Bowles , — S.C. —, —, 431 S.E. (2d) 555, 556 (1993) (citing Easler, 285 S.C. at 356 , 329 S.E. (2d) at 748 ).
discussed Cited "see" Darden v. Ibañez (2×)
S.C. Ct. App. · 2016 · signal: see · confidence high
See Bocook Outdoor Media, Inc. v. Summey Outdoor Advert., Inc., 294 S.C. 169, 177 , 363 S.E.2d 390, 394 (Ct. App. 1987) (holding a stranger to an agreement cannot assert the statute of frauds), overruled on other grounds by O'Neal v. Bowles, 314 S.C. 525 , 431 S.E.2d 555 (1993); Hatcher v. Harleysville Mut.
discussed Cited "see" Burke v. AnMed Health (2×)
S.C. Ct. App. · 2011 · signal: see · confidence high
See O'Neal v. Bowles, 314 S.C. 525, 527 , 431 S.E.2d 555, 556 (1993) ("If the amount of the verdict is grossly inadequate or excessive so as to be the result of passion, caprice, prejudice, or some other influence outside the evidence, the trial judge must grant a new trial absolute.”); Chapman v. Upstate RV & Marine, 364 S.C. 82, 89 , 610 S.E.2d 852, 856 (Ct.App.2005) (" 'The trial judge must grant a new trial absolute if the amount of the verdict is grossly inadequate or excessive so as to shock the conscience of the court and clearly indicates the figure reached was the result of passion,…
discussed Cited "see" Layne v. Gateway Construction Company, Inc. (2×)
S.C. Ct. App. · 2008 · signal: see · confidence high
See O’Neal v. Bowles , 314 S.C. 525, 527 , 431 S.E.2d 555, 556 (1993).
discussed Cited "see" James v. Horace Mann Insurance (2×)
S.C. · 2006 · signal: see · confidence high
See O’Neal v. Bowles, 314 S.C. 525, 527 , 431 S.E.2d 555, 556 (1993).
discussed Cited "see" Clark Ex Rel. Estate of Clark v. South Carolina Department of Public Safety (2×)
S.C. Ct. App. · 2002 · signal: see · confidence high
See O'Neal v. Bowles, 314 S.C. 525 , 431 S.E.2d 555 (1993); Hunter v. Staples, 335 S.C. 93 , 515 S.E.2d 261 (Ct.App.1999). 34 .
discussed Cited "see" Weaver Ex Rel. Estate of Weaver v. Lentz (2×)
S.C. Ct. App. · 2002 · signal: see · confidence high
See O’Neal v. Bowles, 314 S.C. 525 , 431 S.E.2d 555 (1993).
examined Cited "see" Steele v. Dillard (4×)
S.C. Ct. App. · 1997 · signal: see · confidence high
See O’Neal v. Bowles, 314 S.C. 525, 527 , 431 S.E.2d 555, 556 (1993) (if the amount of the jury’s verdict is either grossly inadequate or excessive “so as to be the result of passion, caprice, prejudice, or some other influence outside the evidence, the trial judge must grant a new trial absolute”); Craven v. Cunningham, 292 S.C. 441 , 357 S.E.2d 23 (1987) (the trial court’s decision not to grant a new trial nisi will not be disturbed unless the amount of a verdict is either so grossly excessive or inadequate that it must be deemed the result of the jury’s disregard of the relevant…
discussed Cited "see" Estes v. Grav (2×)
S.C. Ct. App. · 1995 · signal: see · confidence high
See O’Neal v. Bowles, 314 S.C. 525 , 431 S.E. (2d) 555 (1993) (the trial court must grant a new trial absolute if the amount of a verdict is grossly inadequate or excessive so as to be the result of passion, caprice, prejudice, or some other influence outside the evidence).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Jolly v. Fisher Controls International, LLC and Crosby Valve, LLC (2×)
S.C. · 2024 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., O'Neal v. Bowles, 314 S.C. 525, 527 , 431 S.E.2d 555, 556 (1993) ("The trial judge . . . has the power to grant a new trial nisi when [s]he finds the amount of the verdict to be merely inadequate or excessive." 1) (citing Easler v. Hejaz Temple A.A.O.N.M.S. of Greenville, 285 S.C. 348, 356 , 329 S.E.2d 753, 758 (1985)); Warren v. Lagrone, 12 S.C. 45, 53 (1879) (stating a trial court may grant a new trial nisi 1 We omitted the word "alone" from this quotation because it is not part of the trial court's standard for decision on a motion for a new trial nisi.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Daniel L. O’NEAL, Appellant
v.
Robert H. BOWLES, M.D., Respondent
23800.
Supreme Court of South Carolina.
May 17, 1993.
431 S.E.2d 555
Geoffrey H. Waggoner, Charleston, for appellant., Robert H. Hood and Mark V. Evans, of the Hood Law Firm, Charleston Correspondent.
Moore, Harwell, Chandler, Finney, Toal.
Cited by 80 opinions  |  Published
2 passages pin-cited by 2 cases
Pinpoint authority: bottom 91%
Citer courts: Fourth Circuit (1) · Court of Appeals of South Caro… (1)
Moore, Justice:

We hereby withdraw the opinion in O’Neal v. Bowles, Op. No. 23800, (S.C. Sup. Ct. filed February 16,1993) (Davis Adv. Sh. No. 4 at 10), and substitute the following opinion.

This is an appeal from the trial court’s denial of a motion for a new trial nisi additur. We affirm.

FACTS

Appellant Daniel L. O’Neal (O’Neal) fractured his leg in a motorcycle accident in March 1987. Respondent Dr. Robert H. Bowles (Dr. Bowles) operated on O’Neal’s leg to repair the injury. During the operation, the peroneal nerve was severed by Dr.- Bowles. In June 1987, Dr. Bowles operated a second time to repair the nerve. O’Neal brought this action against Dr. Bowles seeking compensatory damages for medical expenses, lost and diminished wages, and other losses as a result of the severed nerve injury. The jury returned a verdict for O’Neal for $12,500 in actual damages. O’Neal made a motion for a new trial nisi additur which the trial court denied. O’Neal appeals the denial of this motion.

ISSUE

The sole issue is whether the trial court erred in denying O’Neal’s motion for a new trial nisi additur.

DISCUSSION

Because we have found inconsistent case law on this issue, we take this opportunity to set forth the correct standard of review for an appeal of a motion for new[*527] trial nisi. The trial judge alone has the power to grant a new trial nisi when he finds the amount of the verdict to be merely inadequate or excessive. Easler v. Hejaz Temple, 285 S.C. 348, 329 S.E. (2d) 753 (1985). The denial of a motion for a new trial nisi is within the trial judge’s discretion and will not be reversed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion. Id.

If the amount of the verdict is grossly inadequate or excessive so as to be the result of passion, caprice, prejudice, or some other influence outside the evidence, the trial judge must grant a new trial absolute. The failure of the trial judge to grant a new trial absolute in this situation amounts to an abuse of discretion and on appeal this Court will grant a new trial absolute. Mickle v. Blackmon, 252 S.C. 202, 166 S.E. (2d) 173 (1969); Zorn v. Crawford, 252 S.C. 127, 165 S.E. (2d) 640 (1969). Therefore, on appeal of the denial of a motion for a new trial nisi, this Court will reverse when the verdict is grossly inadequate or excessive requiring the granting of a new trial absolute.

To the extent the following cases are inconsistent with this opinion, they are overruled: Reid v. Harbison Dev. Corp., 289 S.C. 319, 345 S.E. (2d) 492 (1986); Howard v. Holiday Inns, Inc., 276 S.C. 502, 280 S.E. (2d) 204 (1981); Hutson v. Continental Assurance Co., 269 S.C. 322, 237 S.E. (2d) 375 (1977); Williams v. Robertson Gilchrist Constr. Co., 301 S.C. 153, 390 S.E. (2d) 483 (Ct. App. 1990); Simmons v. Williamson, 300 S.C. 323, 387 S.E. (2d) 698 (Ct. App. 1989); Bocook Outdoor Media, Inc. v. Summey Outdoor Advertising, Inc., 294 S.C. 169, 363 S.E. (2d) 390 (Ct. App. 1987); Jones v. Ingles Supermarkets, Inc., 293 S.C. 490, 361 S.E. (2d) 775 (Ct. App. 1987); Haskins v. Fairfield Elec. Coop., 283 S.C. 229, 321 S.E. (2d) 185 (Ct. App. 1984).

Dr. Bowles does not dispute that he severed O’Neal’s peroneal nerve during the surgery requiring a second surgery to repair the nerve. The dispute is over the amount of damages. At the time of the accident, O’Neal was a lieutenant with the Sullivan’s Island Police Department. By July 7, 1987, O’Neal had used all of his vacation and sick leave and, not being able to return to work, he lost his job. In April 1989, O’Neal was rehired for the only position open, a patrolman first class, which is a lower rank and pay grade.[*528] O’Neal sought medical expenses of $9,087.46, lost wages of $25,166.00 beginning in July 1987, diminished wages of $9,579.00, and damages for a 10% permanent impairment of his leg.

O’Neal testified that Dr. Bowles told him that after the surgery he should be able to return to work without limitations within six to eight weeks. Dr. Bowles testified he told O’Neal he could return to work without limitations within six to eight months. Two experts testified at trial that a fracture like O’Neal’s could take four to six months to heal.

Furthermore, there was conflicting testimony on the issue of the permanent impairment of O’Neal’s leg. Dr. Forste testified that the 10% impairment claimed by O’Neal was caused by the severed nerve. However, another expert testified that any impairment was caused by arthritis from the fracture and not the injury to the nerve.

This case is similar to Boozer v. Boozer, 300 S.C. 282, 387 S.E. (2d) 674 (Ct. App. 1988), where the Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of a new trial. In Boozer, the court stated the plaintiff had pre-existing dental problems and, based on the evidence, the jury could have determined that a portion of the bills were not the result of the accident. The jury in this case could have determined that O’Neal would have lost his job because of the time necessary to heal the fracture and any lost or diminished wages would not have been caused by Dr. Bowles’ actions. Furthermore, the jury could have determined that any impairment was the result of the fracture and not the severed nerve. A $12,500 verdict is not grossly inadequate considering the evidence before the jury. Accordingly, the denial of O’Neal’s motion for a new trial nisi additur is not an abuse of discretion.

Affirmed.

Harwell, C.J., and Chandler, Finney and Toal, JJ., concur.