Fernandez v. Brewer Foods

• Court: Court of Appeals of South Carolina
• Decided: February 9, 2009
• Docket: 2009-UP-070
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 239(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals

Ruby Fernandez, Appellant,

v.

Brewer Foods, Inc., Respondent.

---

Appeal From Allendale County
 Doyet A. Early, III, Circuit Court Judge

---

Unpublished Opinion No.  2009-UP-070
Submitted February 2, 2009 – Filed February 9, 2009

---

AFFIRMED

---

R. Bentz Kirby and Glenn Walters, both of Orangeburg, for Appellant.

John M. Grantland, E. Raymond Moore III and William H. Frye, all of Columbia and Mark B. Tinsley, of Allendale, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Ruby Fernandez appeals the trial court's dismissal of her negligence suit against Brewer Foods.  Fernandez argues the trial court erred in granting Brewer Foods's motion for directed verdict and prohibiting Fernandez from asking her expert witness a hypothetical question.  We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities:  Armstrong v. Food Lion, Inc., 371 S.C. 271, 276, 639 S.E.2d 50, 52 (2006) (holding the trial court's ruling will be reversed only where no evidence supports the ruling or where the ruling is controlled by an error of law); Gazes v. Dillard's Dep't Store, Inc., 341 S.C. 507, 514-15, 534 S.E.2d 306, 310 (Ct. App. 2000) (explaining a hypothetical question to an expert must be based on facts supported by the evidence).

AFFIRMED.[1]

THOMAS, GEATHERS, JJ., and GOOLSBY, A.J., concur. 

---

[1] We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.