Preview:

Robertson v. Opequon Motors, Inc.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA January 1999 Term _____________ No. 25331 _____________ LUCILLE ROBERTSON AND KELLY GLEOCKLER, Plaintiffs Below, Appellees v. OPEQUON MOTORS, INC., A WEST VIRGINIA CORPORATION; AND ELLEN PARSONS, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS PRESIDENT OF DEFENDANT CORPORATION, Defendants Below, Appellants ________________________________________________________________ Appeal from the Circuit Court of Berkeley County Honorable Thomas W. Steptoe, Jr., Judge Case No. 96-C-125 AFFIRMED ________________________________________________________________ Submitted: January 26, 1999 Filed: June 17, 1999 David M. Hammer, Esquire Robert J. Schiavoni, Esquire Hammer, Ferretti & Schiavoni Martinsburg, West Virginia Attorneys for Appellees The Opinion of the Court was delivered PER CURIAM. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT 1. "In reviewing a trial court's ruling on a motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict, it is not the task of the appellate court reviewing facts to determine how it would have ruled on the evidence presented. Its task is to determine whether the evidence was such that a reasonable trier of fact might have reached the decision below. Thus, in ruling on a motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict, the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. If on review, the evidence is shown to be legally insufficient to sustain the verdict, it is the obligation of this Court to reverse the circuit court and to order judgment for the appellant." Syl. Pt. 1, Mildred L.M. v. John O.F., 192 W. Va. 345, 452 S.E.2d 436 (1994). 2. "'"An appellate court will not set aside the verdict of a jury, founded on conflicting testimony and approved by the trial court, unless the verdict is against the plain preponderance of the evidence." Point 2, Syllabus, Stephens v. Bartlett, 118 W. Va. 421, [191 S.E. 550 (1937) ].' Syl. Pt. 1, Walker v. Monongahela Power Co., 147 W. Va. 825, 131 S.E.2d 736 (1963)." Syl. Pt. 1, Kessel v. Leavitt, 204 W. Va. 95, 511 S.E.2d. 720 (1998). Fred F. Holroyd, Esquire Tom Price, Esquire Holroyd, Yost & Evans Charleston, West Virginia Attorneys for Appellants

file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/Opinions/25331.html[7/1/2013 8:33:39 PM]

3. "'The West Virginia Wage Payment and Collection Act is remedial legislation designed to protect working people and assist them in the collection of compensation wrongly withheld.' Syllabus, Mullins v. Venable, 171 W. Va. 92, 297 S.E.2d 866 (1982)." Syl. Pt. 3, Jones v. Tri-County Growers, Inc., 179 W. Va. 218, 366 S.E.2d 726 (1988). 4. "An employee who succeeds in enforcing a claim under W. Va. Code Chapter 21, article 5 should ordinarily recover costs, including reasonable attorney fees unless special circumstances render such an award unjust." Syl. Pt. 3 Farley v. Zapata Coal Corp., 167 W. Va. 630, 281 S.E.2d 238 (1981). 5. "Based on the legislative history of the Wage Payment and Collection Act, W. Va. Code, 21-5-1 et seq. [1979], compliance with all requirements of the Act is mandatory when assigning an employee's wages." Syl. Pt. 4, Jones v. Tri-County Growers, Inc., 179 W. Va. 218, 366 S.E.2d 726 (1988). Per Curiam: The appellant and defendant below, Opequon Motors, Inc., is a car dealership located in Martinsburg, West Virginia, selling new and used vehicles to the general public. The appellant and defendant below, Ellen Parsons, is the president and majority owner of the dealership.See footnote 1 1 Opequon Motors hired salespeople to sell its vehicles and agreed to compensate these salespeople by means of a commission on the sale of each vehicle. These commissioned salespeople are the appellees, plaintiffs below, who brought suit for violations of West Virginia Code

Download 25331.pdf

West Virginia Law