Hattie Rose Elam, Respondent v. South Carolina Department of Transportation, Petitioner

Summary

The court held SCDOT's first written Rule 59(e) motion properly tolled the time for appeal even though it repeated issues raised in earlier oral post-trial motions, so the appeal was timely. The court affirmed the trial court's rulings denying SCDOT's motions for a new trial, to amend its answer, for a directed verdict, and for JNOV, and reinstated the jury's verdict. Justice Waller, dissenting, would have held that the repeated oral arguments did not toll the appeal period and would have affirmed dismissal of the appeal as untimely.