Herring v. Bagnell

CourtCourt of Appeals of South Carolina
DecidedJune 30, 2014
Docket2014-UP-268
StatusUnpublished

This text of Herring v. Bagnell (Herring v. Bagnell) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of South Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Herring v. Bagnell, (S.C. Ct. App. 2014).

Opinion

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

Jones G. Herring, Respondent,

v.

Gilbert S. Bagnell and Bagnell and Eason, LLC, Appellants.

Appellate Case No. 2012-212744

Appeal From Richland County DeAndrea G. Benjamin, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2014-UP-268 Heard April 10, 2014 – Filed June 30, 2014

REMANDED

Richard R. Gleissner, Gleissner Law Firm, LLC, of Columbia, for Appellants.

Douglas N. Truslow, Truslow & Truslow, of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Gilbert S. Bagnell and Bagnell and Eason, LLC, appeal from a default judgment of $254,306.77 in actual damages and $250,000 in punitive damages to Jones G. Herring for Herring's malpractice action. We remand for recalculation and determination of actual damages based on evidence presented according to the following authorities:

1. Actual damages not in accord with evidence presented: Howard v. Holiday Inns, Inc. 271 S.C. 238, 240, 246 S.E.2d 880, 881 (1978) (stating that in a default case the plaintiff must prove the amount of the damages by a preponderance of the evidence); Jackson v. Midlands Human Res. Ctr., 296 S.C. 526, 529, 374 S.E.2d 505, 506 (Ct. App. 1988) (stating though the defendant is in default as to liability, the damages award must be in keeping with the allegations of the complaint and the proof submitted).

2. Punitive damages: Solley v. Navy Fed. Credit Union, Inc., 397 S.C. 192, 213, 723 S.E.2d 597, 608 (Ct. App. 2012) (remanding an award of punitive damages for determination in light of the court's remand for a determination of actual damages); Reid v. Harbison Dev. Corp., 289 S.C. 319, 322, 345 S.E.2d 492, 493 (1986) (stating actual damages should not be separated from punitive damages for retrial on actuals alone).

REMANDED.

HUFF, THOMAS, and PIEPER, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Howard v. Holiday Inns, Inc.
246 S.E.2d 880 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1978)
Reid v. Harbison Development Corp.
345 S.E.2d 492 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1986)
Jackson v. Midlands Human Resources Center
374 S.E.2d 505 (Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 1988)
Solley v. NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, INC.
723 S.E.2d 597 (Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 2012)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Herring v. Bagnell, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/herring-v-bagnell-scctapp-2014.