Opinion ID: 1292929
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Did the trial court commit legal error in viewing certain damages as uncontested?

Text: Gilbert first argues that it was legal error for the trial judge to base his order on the idea that certain damages were uncontested. Gilbert contends that it  did contest those damages, denying them in its Answer, by not stipulating as to damages and by questioning Lane's claims in cross-examining various witnesses about them. In Gilbert's view, the trial court's Order implied that Gilbert was required to put up witnesses to contest the claim of damages and thereby shifted the burden of proof from the plaintiff to the defendant. We disagree. In considering a motion for a new trial, the trial judge must look to see if the evidence justifies the jury verdict. See Norton, 350 S.C. at 478, 567 S.E.2d at 854. The court, in making such an inquiry, is perfectly justified in noting whether the evidence presented to the jury was or was not challenged in front of the jury. Moreover, the trial judge's statement that certain evidence was uncontested was not factually incorrect, since the evidence in question was not challenged by Gilbert at trial, even on cross-examination. Gilbert's counsel told the jury in his opening statement: We are not contesting that he was injured. We are not going to challenge those areas about his life. He was injured. He has undergone a lot of medical treatment. But, there is one part of his damages that we are going to talk about. We do take exception to the future los[t] wages that you are going to hear. As promised, Gilbert did not challenge the medical costs, lost wages prior to trial, or physical impairment rating. Instead, Gilbert chose to focus on disputing Lane's claims for future lost wages, and succeeded as the jury awarded $0 for that particular claim. The trial court committed no error in noting that certain damages were uncontested in its order granting a new trial.