Patterson v. Ortega ( 2015 )


Menu:
  • 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
    T. B. Patterson, Jr., Appellant,
    v.
    Justo Carmona Ortega, Respondent.
    Appellate Case No. 2013-002677
    Appeal From Chester County
    J. Ernest Kinard, Jr., Circuit Court Judge
    Unpublished Opinion No. 2015-UP-127
    Submitted February 1, 2015 – Filed March 11, 2015
    AFFIRMED
    T. B. Patterson, Jr., of Lancaster, pro se.
    George Verner Hanna, IV, and Michael Smoak
    Traynham, both of Howser, Newman & Besley, L.L.C.,
    of Columbia, for Respondent.
    PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following
    authorities: A & I, Inc. v. Gore, 
    366 S.C. 233
    , 239, 
    621 S.E.2d 383
    , 386 (Ct. App.
    2005) ("Where the circuit court has affirmed the magistrate court decision, this
    court looks to whether the circuit court order is controlled by an error of law or is
    unsupported by the facts." (internal quotation marks omitted)); Hadfield v.
    Gilchrist, 
    343 S.C. 88
    , 94, 
    538 S.E.2d 268
    , 271 (Ct. App. 2000) (stating unless this
    court finds an error of law, it will affirm the circuit court's holding if any facts
    support its decision); Bailey v. Segars, 
    346 S.C. 359
    , 366, 
    550 S.E.2d 910
    , 913 (Ct.
    App. 2001) (stating that in a cause of action for negligence, the plaintiff is required
    to prove damages proximately resulting from the defendant's breach of duty);
    Austin v. Specialty Transp. Servs., Inc., 
    358 S.C. 298
    , 312, 
    594 S.E.2d 867
    , 874
    (Ct. App. 2004) ("The basic measure of actual damages is the amount needed to
    compensate the plaintiff for the losses proximately caused by the defendant's
    wrong so that the plaintiff will be in the same position he would have been in if
    there had been no wrongful injury."); Minter v. GOCT, Inc., 
    322 S.C. 525
    , 528,
    
    473 S.E.2d 67
    , 70 (Ct. App. 1996) ("[T]he general rule for recovery of
    damages . . . requires that the evidence should be such as to enable the factfinder to
    determine the amount of the damages with reasonable certainty.").
    AFFIRMED.1
    THOMAS, KONDUROS, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.
    1
    We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 2015-UP-127

Filed Date: 3/11/2015

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/22/2024