James Floyd Webster, Respondent v. Holly Hill Lumber Company, Appellant (South Carolina 1977)

Summary

The court held that the evidence was sufficient to submit Webster's intentional-interference claim to the jury, but reversed because the trial court admitted a nonparty's deposition based solely on an ineffective stipulation. The court remanded for a new trial at which the deposition could be admitted only upon the showing required by Rule 87(D), or the witness could be produced. Ness, Justice, dissenting, agreed that the deposition was improperly admitted but would have affirmed because the appellant's testimony independently established the same material facts and cured any evidentiary error.

Holding

Sufficiency of the evidence. The evidence, although slight, was susceptible of more than one reasonable inference when viewed in the light most favorable to Webster, so the trial court properly submitted the claim to the jury and refused to overturn the verdict on sufficiency grounds.

Admissibility of the nonparty deposition. The deposition was improperly admitted because the stipulation did not waive the conditions governing use of a deposition at trial under Rule 87(D), and the record did not establish that the witness was unavailable or that exceptional circumstances justified use of the deposition.