THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS
PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 239(d)(2), SCACR.
THE STATE OF
In The Court of Appeals
Pherebie Wall and Robert Wall, Appellants,
Bi-Lo, Inc., Respondent.
James E. Brogdon, Jr., Circuit Court Judge
Unpublished Opinion No. 2006-UP-097
Submitted February 1, 2006 – Filed February 14, 2006
Pherebie O. Wall and Robert E. Wall, both of
Florence, pro se.
Michael N. Tyler and Benjamin A. Baroody, both of
Florence, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: Pherebie and Robert Wall appeal the trial court’s directed verdict in favor of Bi-Lo, Inc. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: Issue I: Hopson v. Clary, 321 S.C. 312, 314, 468 S.E.2d 305, 307 (Ct. App. 1996) (“[i]f the evidence as a whole is susceptible to only one reasonable inference, . . . the [directed verdict] motion was properly granted.”); Austin v. Specialty Transp. Servs., Inc., 358 S.C. 298, 318, 594 S.E.2d 867, 877 (Ct. App. 2004) (“Under the doctrine of respondeat superior, the employer is liable for the acts of an employee acting within the scope of employment.”). Issue II: Rule 77(c), SCRCP (“All motions and applications in the clerk’s office for . . . proceedings which do not require allowance or order of the court are grantable of course by the clerk; but his action may be suspended or altered or rescinded by the court upon motion for cause shown.”); Issue III: Rule 15(a), SCRCP (“[A] party may amend his pleading only by leave of court or by written consent of the adverse party.”); Berry v. McLeod, 328 S.C. 435, 450, 492 S.E.2d 794, 802 (Ct. App. 1997) (“The decision to allow an amendment is within the sound discretion of the trial court and will rarely be disturbed on appeal.”); Issue IV: Hundley ex rel. Hundley v. Rite Aid of S.C., Inc., 339 S.C. 285, 305, 529 S.E.2d 45, 56 (Ct. App. 2000) (“A judge’s ruling on whether to grant a continuance will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion.”); Issue V: Based on authorities provided above.
GOOLSBY, HUFF, and STILWELL, JJ., concur.
 We decide the case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.