Lomax v. Langston

• Court: Court of Appeals of South Carolina
• Decided: April 9, 2003
• Docket: 2003-UP-259
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals

Tina M. Lomax, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Terrance A. Lomax, a minor under the age of fourteen years, deceased,        Appellant,

v.

Daniel J. Langston, Sylvia Langston, John A. Miller, Louise B. Miller, South Carolina Regional Housing Authority No.1,        Defendants,

Of whom South Carolina Regional Housing Authority No. 1 is        Respondent.

---

Appeal From Pickens County
G. Thomas Cooper, Jr., Circuit Court Judge

---

Unpublished Opinion No. 2003-UP-259
Submitted April 7, 2003 - Filed April 9, 2003

---

AFFIRMED

---

Joseph Gary Armstrong, of Greenville, for Appellant.

G. Edward Welmaker, of Pickens, for Respondent.

---

PER CURIAM:  Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b)(2), SCACR, and the following authorities: As to issue I: Rule 207(D), SCACR (stating the argument portion of a brief must include citations to authority); see Parks v. Morris Homes Corp., 245 S.C. 461, 471, 141 S.E.2d 129, 134 (1965) (holding where “no . . . authority [is] cited to sustain the exception, it is properly considered abandoned [on appeal]”); see also Miller v. City of Camden, 329 S.C. 310, 314, 494 S.E.2d 813, 815 (1997) (“One who controls the use of property has a duty of care not to harm others by its use.  Conversely, one who has no control owes no duty.” (internal citations omitted)); Mahle v. Wilson, 283 S.C. 486, 488, 323 S.E.2d 65, 66 (1984) (holding a landowner has no duty to protect a person from harm once that person has left the landowner’s property).

As to issue II: Hubbard v. Taylor, 339 S.C. 582, 588, 529 S.E.2d 549, 552 (Ct. App. 2000) (holding “[t]he elements for a cause of action for the tort of negligence are: (1) a duty owed to the plaintiff by the defendant, (2) a breach of that duty by the defendant, and (3) damages proximately resulting from the breach of duty”); Bishop v. South Carolina Dep’t of Mental Health, 331 S.C. 79, 86, 502 S.E.2d 78, 81 (1998) (indicating where the element of a legal duty of care is absent, no actionable negligence exists, and thus, the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injury is immaterial).

AFFIRMED.¹

STILWELL, HOWARD, JJ., and STROM, Acting Judge, concur.

---

¹ Because oral argument would not aid the Court in resolving any issue on appeal, we decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.