*1 WILLIAMS, Emma as Administratrix of the Estate Johnnie Respondent v. ROBERTSON GILCHRIST CONSTRUCTION INC., COMPANY, Appellant.

(390 (2d) 483) Appeals Court of Potts, Potts, Lewis, Lewis, Frank S. & Bruce Columbia, appellant. Battiste, Johnson, T. Toal & William and Luther J. Tool Battiste, Columbia, respondent. 23, 1990. Heard Jan. 12, 1990.

Decided March Judge:

Gardner,

This is a case in Emma plaintiff, for the in the amount

verdict post-judgment A (Williams), as Administratrix. for a new trial motion Williams $225,000.1 increased and the trial affirm.

ISSUE trial judge, is a sole issue of merit whether additur, make an must a

FACTS appeal. to this relating a facts only pertinent There are few economist, Wood, who expert Dr. Oliver Williams called by the loss suffered testified the total economic that $170,590. stipulated The parties deceased’s beneficiaries offered several bill was Williams that the funeral losses as non-economic who testified such witnesses etc. This advice, affection, companionship, loss of love and testimony is uncontradicted. for a motion attorney timely postverdict made a

Williams’ nisi additur on the obviously that the ground new trial the economic only upon a verdict based issued the order: The trial verdict, it if THE COURT: Thank counselor. you, forth the economist figure by not the exact set were $170,590, of I for economic loss could if that there was an unreasonable, it were not the fact figure that of the fact economic loss. But view damage, the economic figure mirrors or did not award my it would be conclusion anything or for the loss damage for the funeral bill and emotions, grief loss of loss of the companionship, damage. So, intangible elements sorrow and other a trial under the terms grant am new going the full sum of required the defendant plaintiff. new to the or trial $170,590.00; only in this Robertson contests the additur.

DISCUSSION A trial judge may grant a new trial upon finding that the verdict is so that it be inadequate must determined to the result of the jury’s disregard of or the facts instructions. The order must contain compelling reasons in accord with this rule. Craven v. Haskins v. Elec. Co-Op., Fairfield reject argument

jury simply reduced the amount of economic and loss then added the funeral bill and what it found to proper amount for non-economic losses. We hold although possible, this is improbable most and highly conjectural. On the other trial judge’s reasoning points to the exact sameness economic losses as Dr. testified Wood and the amount of the verdict. He then reasoning, with good concluded that the jury *3 disregarded the the bill testimony about funeral and non- losses; economic concur this we in conclusion. As Justice in Craven Finney wrote the supra, finding gross inadequacy must be determined to the the result of jury’s disregard of the facts or the trial instructions. judge’s This is happened judge’s what in this case. The trial jury disregarded testimony conclusion that had pertaining losses, to the funeral bill we and non-economic hold, is to grossly tantamount the verdict was finding inadequate.

The appellate state, knowledge, our to have not required a trial judge in granting a new trial nisi to make grossly hold, inadequate. sufficient, It is we that the court articulate the reasons it the award considers to be in jury the order grossly inadequate. We hold that this case complies with that rule. a new trial nisi additur

It is to remembered that when granted, to the amount if the ruled party against agrees provided he not motion, may the order then granting agree, he on the other if he does not complain; Ingles Supermarkets, See Jones v. right retry to the case.

CONCLUSION a motion for a in We hold that many in so necessary judge for the trial it is not grossly in order that the verdict or write his words a new a motion for sufficient, in It is inadequate. his conclusion the trial verbalize trial the facts damages disregarded awarding compelling these When instruction. judge’s the case or motion, is, are stated in the order reasons verbalization tantamount And we conclusion that so hold.

Affirmed. J., concurs.

Bell, J., opinion. dissents with Goolsby, (dissenting): Goolsby, Judge dissent. respectfully against brought This an action for Inc., by Emma Company, Construction Robertson Gilchrist of Johnnie as Administratrix of the Estate actual returned a verdict for Williams. however, $170,590. Williams, Williams’ favor in the amount of trial on or, alternative, for a new for an additur in the moved issue should a new trial Williams The trial court elect not to an additur of Robertson Gilchrist time limit within which prescribe trial court did was to make its choice. Robertson Gilchrist immediately electing without appealed *4 by the trial court. suggested the additur whether serving appeal, After its notice of Williams the sum of appeal premature would dismiss to choose between yet Robertson Gilchrist has

because See McBroom submitting to a new trial. paying the additur or (an Hill, (2d) (Miss.1978) an v. from order appeal 365 So. 63 held where the premature an additur or a new trial and no new trial had been held accepted additur had not been

157 because the issue of remained unresolved in the damages Clarkson v. Crawford, court); 299, 285 Pa. 132 A. 350 cf. (1926) (a from an order plaintiffs appeal defendant a new trial unless the remitted a named plaintiff amount of premature held where the was taken before appeal the plaintiff elected whether to the lesser sum agree accept since the plaintiff could not complain being injured by granting of new trial until the refused to take the plaintiff amount). smaller I recognize that the appellate state have entertained similar appeals; however, neither the Court nor Supreme this court has addressed the issue of whether of such a motion is where the appealable to make the party required election has neither the accepted of a new trial. Graham v. additur nor the alternative Whitaker, (2d) Ingles Jones v. 393, 321 282 S.C. (Ct. Supermarkets, (2d) 293 S.C. 490, App. 361 S.E. Orr, (Ct. Chiappetta 1987); 293 S.C. 250, 359 S.E. Middleton & Co. v. R.R. 1987); Atlantic Coast Line App. cf. Co., (1925) (a S.E. 552 may appeal defendant the denial of a motion for a new trial or new trial nisi and the remedy of the plaintiff the same where is for an amount less than the conceives it should plaintiff Thomas v. been); have Seay, 1988) (a appeal defendant’s from an order

a motion for a new trial not waive the does defendant’s of the right to a new trial an affirmance order on appeal).

The payment after by Robertson Gilchrist to Williams service of jury’s its notice of of the amount cannot be or a acceptance viewed as either rejection either of trial since the the additur or of a new payment can suggest either that Robertson declined to accept the additur or it has declined alternative of a new trial.