Mathis Plumbing Co. v. Firriolo

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR. THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Court of Appeals Mathis Plumbing Company, Inc., Respondent, v. Thomas Firriolo, Appellant. Appeal From Greenwood County Frank R. Addy, Jr., Circuit Court Judge Unpublished Opinion No. 2012-UP-291 Heard April 26, 2012 - Filed May 9, 2012 AFFIRMED J. Falkner Wilkes, of Greenville, for Appellant. Charles Franklin Turner, Jr., and Sarah Day Hurley, both of Greenville, for Respondent. PER CURIAM: In this breach of contract action, Appellant Thomas Firriolo seeks review of the jury's verdict for Respondent Mathis Plumbing Company, Inc., on the ground that the verdict was not supported by the evidence. Firriolo also appeals the trial court's exclusion of testimony concerning an investigation of Mathis Plumbing Company's performance of the parties' contract by the South Carolina Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation.[1] We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: Austin v. Stokes-Craven Holding Corp., 387 S.C. 22, 36, 691 S.E.2d 135, 142 (2010) ("The factual findings of the jury will not be disturbed unless no evidence reasonably supports the jury's findings."); Vaught v. A.O. Hardee & Sons, Inc., 366 S.C. 475, 480, 623 S.E.2d 373, 375 (2005) ("The admission of evidence is within the sound discretion of the trial judge, and absent a clear abuse of discretion amounting to an error of law, the trial court's ruling will not be disturbed on appeal."); id. ("To warrant reversal based on the admission or exclusion of evidence, the appellant must prove both the error of the ruling and the resulting prejudice, i.e., there is a reasonable probability the jury's verdict was influenced by the wrongly admitted or excluded evidence."); Laser Supply & Servs., Inc. v. Orchard Park Assocs., 382 S.C. 326, 338, 676 S.E.2d 139, 145 (Ct. App. 2009) ("A waiver is the intentional relinquishment of a known right."); id. at 337, 676 S.E.2d at 145 (holding that the determination of whether one's actions constitute a waiver is a question of fact); Skipper v. Perrone, 382 S.C. 53, 62, 674 S.E.2d 510, 514 (Ct. App. 2009) (holding that waiver may be expressed or implied by a party's conduct); Jamison v. Ford Motor Co., 373 S.C. 248, 260, 644 S.E.2d 755, 761 (Ct. App. 2007) ("[A] reviewing court may not consider error claimed in the exclusion of testimony unless the record on appeal shows fairly what the rejected testimony would have been."); Pope v. Gordon, 359 S.C. 572, 585-86, 598 S.E.2d 288, 295 (Ct. App. 2004) (holding an issue that a party failed to address in its brief was not preserved for this court's review). AFFIRMED. PIEPER, KONDUROS, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur. [1] Prior to oral argument, Mathis Plumbing Company submitted a motion to supplement the Record on Appeal, which we granted.