Note: Beginning in June 2012, opinions will be posted as Adobe PDFs. You can download a free copy of Adobe Reader here.
The summary following each opinion is prepared to offer lawyers and the public a general overview of what a particular opinion decides. The summary is not necessarily a full description of the issues discussed in an opinion.
2-3-2011 - Opinions
William Conrad Martin appeals his conviction for felony driving under the influence (DUI) resulting in death. Martin argues the trial court erred in admitting certain expert testimony and declining to grant a directed verdict on felony DUI. We affirm.
Karen Harris appeals the jury's verdict in favor of the University of South Carolina (the University) on her negligence claim for damages resulting from injuries she suffered in a fall on University property. Harris argues the trial court erred in (1) charging the jury on the Limitation on Liability of Landowners Act, commonly known as the Recreational Use Statute (the RUS), (2) charging she carried the burden of proof regarding the RUS, (3) charging gross negligence, and (4) charging the law regarding the duty owed to a licensee.
The plaintiffs in this action were property owners in the Holly Woods Development in Greenville or members of the Holly Woods Association of Residence Owners (the Association). The Association brought suit against the property developers in 2005. After a trial, the jury awarded the Association $971,000 in actual damages for its negligence claim and $1 for the breach of implied warranty of workmanlike service claim. On appeal from this tort action, Joe W. Hiller, Robert E. Hiller, and David Hiller of HHH, Ltd. of Greenville, and Joe Hiller, individually, (Appellants) argue the trial court erred in: (1) allowing the Association to present a damages estimate from its expert witness; (2) denying Appellants' motions for directed verdict and judgment non obstante verdict; (3) submitting verdict forms to the jury without separating the respective defendants; (4) failing to grant a new trial absolute; (5) finding in favor of the Association on its equitable causes of action; (6) failing to grant a mistrial; and (7) allowing the Association to amend its complaint on the day of trial. We affirm.
2-16-2011 - Opinions
In this breach of contract action, Gary Ownbey and Tidelands Investments, LLC (Tidelands) argue the special referee erred in granting Scalise Development, Inc.'s motion for partial summary judgment.
This is an appeal of a damages award in a personal injury action.
2-17-2011 - Opinions
The master granted brothers Thomas and Richard Pendarvis an easement implied by prior use and prescriptive easement over a portion of a road that was recently discovered to cross onto Jewell Cook's land. Cook is their ex-stepmother and appeals the master's order arguing that because the original grantor did now know of the encroachment, he could not have intended for it to continue. We affirm the trial court order granting an easement implied by prior use.
2-23-2011 - Opinions
Beaufort County School District (Beaufort) filed this breach of an insurance contract and bad faith action against Appellants South Carolina School Boards Insurance Trust, South Carolina School Boards Insurance Trust - Property/Casualty Trust Fund (collectively, the Trust), and United National Insurance Company (United). Beaufort sought damages and a declaration of insurance coverage. The trial court granted Beaufort's motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of coverage under sexual abuse and sexual harassment endorsements to an insurance policy. United and the Trust appeal.
In this appeal we are called upon to determine what the Legislature meant by the term "on the first page of the contract" in section 15-48-10(a) of the South Carolina Uniform Arbitration Act (2005). We hold that the term means the page preceding all other pages in the contract. We agree with the circuit court that the notice of arbitration in this case does not comply with the statute, and affirm the denial of the motion to compel arbitration.
Kenneth Ray Harris appeals the trial court's denial of his motion for a new trial based on after-discovered evidence in the form of a recantation by a witness for the State. We affirm.
In this domestic action, Paul W. Reiss (Husband) appeals the family court's final decree of divorce alleging error in the family court's (1) valuation of marital property, (2) equitable apportionment, (3) award of alimony to Margaret M. Reiss (Wife), (4) calculation of his support arrearage, and (5) award of attorney's fees in favor of Wife. We affirm.