Background
In 2019, Jane Vohringer’s vehicle was involved in a collision with Robert Watford. Vohringer sued Watford and his wrecker service for negligence, seeking actual and punitive damages. Before trial, she moved to exclude two defense experts: Marc Paradiso, a registered professional engineer, and Dr. Ian Campbell, a biomechanical engineering consultant. The trial court denied the motion in limine and allowed both experts to testify.
After trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Vohringer for $30,000 in actual damages. Dissatisfied with the amount, Vohringer moved for a new trial, new trial nisi additur, and new trial absolute. The trial court denied all three motions, and Vohringer appealed, arguing the trial court (1) abused its discretion in finding the defense experts’ testimony reliable; (2) erred in failing to hold a separate punitive damages phase; and (3) erred in denying a new trial nisi additur based on defense counsel’s closing argument statements.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed on all three issues.
On expert testimony, the court applied South Carolina’s three-part test for admissibility: (1) the subject matter must be beyond the ordinary knowledge of the jury; (2) the expert must have the requisite knowledge and skill; and (3) the substance of the testimony must be reliable. See Watson v. Ford Motor Co., 389 S.C. 434, 446 (2010). Applying the State v. Council reliability factors, the court found Paradiso’s engineering analysis of the change in vehicle velocity was not impermissibly subjective; even where an expert’s methodology is not published or subject to peer review, it can still be admitted if it satisfies the reliability inquiry appropriate to the kind of testimony offered. The trial court’s decision to admit expert testimony is reviewed for an abuse of discretion, and discretionary rulings in this area are disturbed only in exceptional circumstances. The court found no abuse of discretion as to either Paradiso or Dr. Campbell.
On punitive damages, the court affirmed the trial court’s handling of the trial without a separate punitive phase. Punitive damages in South Carolina require a finding of actual malice, willfulness, wantonness, or recklessness. The jury found for Vohringer on actual damages but did not make findings that would entitle her to a punitive damages phase; the evidence at trial was sufficient for the jury to limit its verdict to actual damages. The court found no error.
On the new trial nisi additur claim, the standard is whether the verdict is so grossly inadequate as to indicate it was the result of caprice, passion, prejudice, or mistake. A motion for additur asks the trial court to increase the jury’s award. The court reviews the denial of such a motion for an abuse of discretion. Here, the jury’s $30,000 verdict was within the range supported by the evidence, and the trial court’s finding that defense counsel’s closing argument did not improperly influence the verdict was supported by the record. The court affirmed.
Key Takeaways
- Engineering and biomechanical expert testimony in South Carolina auto-accident cases is evaluated under the three-part test of Watson v. Ford Motor Co.—qualifications, relevance, and reliability—and the reliability prong applies flexibly depending on the nature of the expertise; a change-in-velocity analysis by a licensed professional engineer is not automatically unreliable simply because it involves some degree of professional judgment.
- The trial court’s decision to admit or exclude expert testimony is reviewed for abuse of discretion and is reversed only in exceptional circumstances; a pre-trial motion in limine to exclude defense experts should be prepared with specific documented challenges to methodology, not merely general assertions of subjectivity.
- A jury verdict for actual damages does not automatically entitle a plaintiff to a separate punitive damages phase; the predicate findings of willfulness, wantonness, or recklessness must be supported by evidence and are for the jury to find in the course of trial.
- A new trial nisi additur is warranted only when the verdict is so grossly inadequate that it cannot be the result of a fair and impartial consideration of the evidence; a verdict within the evidentiary range supported by testimony of the parties’ damages is not a basis for additur even if the plaintiff considers it low.
Why It Matters
For South Carolina plaintiffs’ lawyers, Vohringer is a reminder that attacking defense experts on reliability grounds requires a specific, documented record—not just general objections that the methodology is subjective. Engineering experts in vehicle-impact cases regularly testify to change-in-velocity calculations based on professional judgment, and South Carolina courts consistently defer to the trial court’s determination that such testimony meets the reliability prong. The pre-trial motion record and any Daubert-style hearing are essential to preserving the issue for appeal.
On the new trial side, the decision illustrates the high bar for additur in South Carolina. A jury that finds the defendant liable but awards modest actual damages has exercised its factfinding function, and courts give wide latitude to jury verdicts within the range of the evidence. Practitioners seeking to challenge a verdict as grossly inadequate must show it is the product of passion, prejudice, or mistake—not merely that they would have preferred a higher number.