Burns v. Wannamaker

343 S.E.2d 27, 288 S.C. 398, 1986 S.C. LEXIS 333
CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina
DecidedApril 14, 1986
Docket22530
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 343 S.E.2d 27 (Burns v. Wannamaker) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of South Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Burns v. Wannamaker, 343 S.E.2d 27, 288 S.C. 398, 1986 S.C. LEXIS 333 (S.C. 1986).

Opinion

Per Curiam:

This case is before the Court on petition for a writ of certiorari to review the opinions of the Court of Appeals in Burns v. Wannamaker, 281 S. C. 352, 315 S. E. (2d) 179 (1984), appeal after remand, 286 S. E. 336, 333 S. E. (2d) 358 (1985).

We grant certiorari to review the question of what burden of proof applies to this case and deny certiorari on all other questions. We dispense with the filing of briefs and affirm the opinions of the Court of Appeals as modified.

*399 The Court of Appeals held that a dentist’s bréach of an express warranty for the fit of dentures must be proved by clear and convincing evidence. This holding is erroneous.

The general burden of proof for breach of warranty cases in South Carolina is preponderance of the evidence. Spartanburg Hotel Corp. v. Alexander Smith, Inc., 231 S. C. 1, 97 S. E. (2d) 199 (1957); Stevenson v. B. B. Kirkland Seed Co., 176 S. C. 345, 180 S. E. 197 (1935); Baltazzi v. McCormick, 153 S. C. 371, 150 S. E. 900 (1929). The clear and convincing standard adopted by the Court of Appeals would give greater protection to doctors than to any other class of warranty defendants.

Because the application of an erroneous burden of proof did not affect the result in this case, we affirm the opinions of the Court of Appeals as modified. Respondent’s request for attorney’s fees in excess of those available under Supreme Court Rule 38 is denied.

Affirmed as modified.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

The Gatherings Horizontal Property Regime v. Williams
Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 2005
St. Luke's Reformed Episcopal Church v. Dayse
Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 2004
Harvey v. Strickland
566 S.E.2d 529 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 2002)
Kiriakides v. Atlas Food Systems & Services, Inc.
541 S.E.2d 257 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 2001)
Holy Loch Distributors, Inc. v. Hitchcock
531 S.E.2d 282 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 2000)
Holy Loch Distributors, Inc. v. Hitchcock
503 S.E.2d 787 (Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 1998)
Banks Ex Rel. Estate of Banks v. Medical University
444 S.E.2d 519 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1994)
GHMSW Partnership v. Logan
426 S.E.2d 332 (Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 1992)
Georgetown Steel Corp. v. Union Carbide Corp.
806 F. Supp. 74 (D. South Carolina, 1992)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
343 S.E.2d 27, 288 S.C. 398, 1986 S.C. LEXIS 333, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/burns-v-wannamaker-sc-1986.