Patterson v. Ortega

• Court: Court of Appeals of South Carolina
• Decided: March 11, 2015
• Docket: 2015-UP-127
• Status: Unpublished

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

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Unpublished Opinion No. 2015-UP-127 Submitted February 1, 2015 – Filed March 11, 2015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.