Charles Hobb v. Fairway Oaks ( 2018 )

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
Charles Thomas Hobbs and Mary Hobbs, Appellants,
v.
Fairway Oaks Homeowners Association, Respondent.
Appellate Case No. 2015-002573
Appeal From Pickens County
Edward W. Miller, Circuit Court Judge
Unpublished Opinion No. 2018-UP-011
Heard October 4, 2017 – Filed January 10, 2018
AFFIRMED
Raymond Talmage Wooten, of Smith, Jordan and
Lavery, PA, of Easley, for Appellants.
John Robert Murphy, Wesley Brian Sawyer, and Elliott
Bishop Daniels, all of Murphy & Grantland, PA, of
Columbia, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: Charles Thomas Hobbs and Mary Hobbs (collectively, Hobbs)
appeal a circuit court order granting summary judgment to Fairway Oaks
Homeowners Association (Fairway Oaks) for Hobbs's claim that Fairway Oaks
was liable for injuries Charles Hobbs sustained when an independent contractor
negligently removed a damaged tree limb in the neighborhood common area. On
appeal, Hobbs argues the circuit court erred by holding Fairway Oaks did not owe
a nondelegable duty when performing maintenance to its common area.
We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: Gary v.
Askew, 417 S.C. 232, 239-40, 789 S.E.2d 94, 98-99 (Ct. App. 2016) ("An appellate
court reviews a grant of summary judgment by applying the same standard as the
circuit court under Rule 56(c), SCRCP."); Cherry v. Myers Timber Co., 404 S.C.
596, 600, 745 S.E.2d 405, 407 (Ct. App. 2013) ("In determining whether a genuine
issue of fact exists, the evidence and all reasonable inferences drawn from it must
be viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party."); Easterling v.
Burger King Corp., 416 S.C. 437, 445, 786 S.E.2d 443, 447 (Ct. App. 2016) ("In a
negligence case, where the burden of proof is a preponderance of the evidence
standard, the non-moving party must only submit a mere scintilla of evidence to
withstand a motion for summary judgment." (quoting Bass v. Gopal, Inc., 395 S.C.
129, 134, 716 S.E.2d 910, 912 (2011))); Rock Hill Tel. Co. v. Globe Commc'ns,
Inc., 363 S.C. 385, 390, 611 S.E.2d 235, 238 (2005) ("The general rule is that an
employer is not vicariously liable for the negligent acts of an independent
contractor."); Gary, 417 S.C. at 249, 789 S.E.2d at 103 ("While it is difficult to
define the exact circumstances under which a nondelegable duty will be found, a
review of case law reveals that our courts' decisions regarding whether to apply the
nondelegable duty doctrine are primarily grounded in public policy
considerations."); Rock Hill Tel. Co., 363 S.C. at 391, 611 S.E.2d at 238(reviewing South Carolina's nondelegable duty doctrine and refusing to expand it
to include public utilities).
AFFIRMED.
LOCKEMY, C.J., and HUFF and HILL, JJ., concur.