Lomax v. Langston

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Unpublished Opinion No. 2003-UP-259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.