Filed: Dec. 18, 2013
Latest Update: Dec. 18, 2013
Summary: THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCARC. PER CURIAM. Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: McBride v. Sch. Dist. of Greenville Cnty., 389 S.C. 546 , 558, 698 S.E.2d 845 , 851 (Ct. App. 2010) ("In ruling on a directed verdict motion, the trial court must view the evidence and the inferences reasonably drawn from the evidence in the light most favor
Summary: THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCARC. PER CURIAM. Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: McBride v. Sch. Dist. of Greenville Cnty., 389 S.C. 546 , 558, 698 S.E.2d 845 , 851 (Ct. App. 2010) ("In ruling on a directed verdict motion, the trial court must view the evidence and the inferences reasonably drawn from the evidence in the light most favora..
More
THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCARC.
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: McBride v. Sch. Dist. of Greenville Cnty., 389 S.C. 546, 558, 698 S.E.2d 845, 851 (Ct. App. 2010) ("In ruling on a directed verdict motion, the trial court must view the evidence and the inferences reasonably drawn from the evidence in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion. The trial court must deny the motion[] when the evidence yields more than one inference or an inference is in doubt." (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)); Parrish v. Allison, 376 S.C. 308, 319, 656 S.E.2d 382, 388 (Ct. App. 2007) ("When considering directed verdict motions, neither the trial court nor the appellate court has authority to decide credibility issues or to resolve conflicts in the testimony or evidence."); Moriarty v. Garden Sanctuary Church of God, 341 S.C. 320, 337, 534 S.E.2d 672, 680 (2000) ("The law makes absolutely no distinction between the weight or value to be given to either direct or circumstantial evidence." (internal quotation marks omitted)); Mahaffey v. Ahl, 264 S.C. 241, 248, 214 S.E.2d 119, 122 (1975) ("A driver's failure to keep a proper lookout and maintain his vehicle under proper control are normally questions to be resolved by the jury.").
AFFIRMED.1
HUFF, GEATHERS, and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.
FootNotes
1. We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.
