137 S.E.2d 276
18230Supreme Court of South Carolina.
June 24, 1964.
Messrs. Williams Johnson, of Aiken, and Carl M. Hair, of North Augusta, for Appellant, cite: As to trial Judge abusing his discretion in granting a new trial, and the order should be set aside and the verdict restored: 239 S.C. 37, 121 S.E.2d 300; 212 S.C. 26, 46 S.E.2d 176.
Messrs. Henderson, Salley Cushman, of Aiken, for Respondents, cite: As to an order granting a new trial based upon a consideration of the evidence and a conclusion therefrom by the trial Judge, contrary to that of the jury, not being appealable: 223 S.C. 477, 76 S.E.2d 671; 133 S.E.2d 127; 243 S.C. 376, 133 S.E.2d 833. As
to the additional sustaining grounds inserted in the transcript of record: 233 S.C. 129, 103 S.E.2d 908; 227 S.C. 351, 88 S.E.2d 260; 231 S.C. 84, 97 S.E.2d 403.
June 24, 1964.
In this action for the recovery of damages arising out of an automobile collision the verdict was for the plaintiff. The trial judge granted defendant’s motion for a new trial, not on the ground of any legal error, “but solely on the ground that the verdict was contrary to the greater weight of the evidence and on the ground that I am not satisfied with the justice of the case and feel that it should be tried before another jury.” The plaintiff appeals.
It is clear that the order granting a new trial was based upon a consideration of the evidence and a conclusion therefrom by the trial judge, contrary to that of the jury. It is well settled in this state that the trial judge has the authority and responsibility to grant a new trial when, in his judgment, the verdict of the jury is contrary to the fair preponderance of the evidence and that an order granting a new trial on such ground is not appealable. Lee v. Kirby, 243 S.C. 185, 133 S.E.2d 127; Mack v. Frito-Lay et al., 243 S.C. 376, 133 S.E.2d 833.
TAYLOR, C.J., and MOSS, LEWIS, BUSSEY and BRAILSFORD, JJ., concur.