Davidson v. City of Beaufort

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

Amy Davidson, Appellant,

v.

City of Beaufort, Branch Banking & Trust of South
Carolina, Collins Engineering, Inc., Brantley
Construction Company, Inc., and Tidal Wave 23, LLC,
Defendants,

Of whom Branch Banking & Trust of South Carolina and
City of Beaufort are Respondents.

Phillip Davidson, Appellant,

v.

City of Beaufort, Branch Banking & Trust of South
Carolina, Collins Engineering, Inc., Brantley
Construction Company, Inc., and Tidal Wave 23, LLC,
Defendants,

Of whom Branch Banking & Trust of South Carolina and
City of Beaufort are Respondents.

Appellate Case No. 2010-163346

Appeal From Beaufort County
Carmen T. Mullen, Circuit Court Judge
Unpublished Opinion No. 2013-UP-059
Heard December 10, 2012 – Filed January 30, 2013

AFFIRMED

H. Fred Kuhn, Jr., of Moss Kuhn & Fleming, PA, of
Beaufort, for Appellants Amy and Philip Davidson.

Edward K. Pritchard, III, of Pritchard & Elliott, LLC, of
Charleston, for Respondent Branch Banking and Trust of
South Carolina; William B. Harvey, III, of Harvey &
Battey, PA, and Mary Bass Lohr and William Thomas
Young, III, of Howell Gibson & Hughes, PA, all of
Beaufort, for Respondent City of Beaufort.

PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following
authorities:

1. As to whether the trial court erred in granting summary judgment prior to the
completion of discovery: Dawkins v. Fields, 354 S.C. 58, 69, 580 S.E.2d 433, 439
(2003) (holding the nonmoving party must show a likelihood that further discovery
will uncover additional relevant evidence); Gauld v. O'Shaugnessy Realty Co., 380
S.C. 548, 559, 671 S.E.2d 79, 85 (Ct. App. 2008) (holding a failure of proof on an
essential element of the case renders all other facts immaterial).

2. As to whether the trial court erred in granting summary judgment to BB&T:
Estate of Adair v. L-J, Inc., 372 S.C. 154, 160, 641 S.E.2d 63, 66 (Ct. App. 2007)
(indicating a landowner owes no duty to a trespasser except the duty not to do him
willful or wanton injury).

3. As to whether the trial court erred in granting summary judgment to the City
of Beaufort: 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." (citations omitted));
Gauld, 380 S.C. at 559, 671 S.E.2d at 85 ("A complete failure of proof concerning
an essential element of the non-moving party's case necessarily renders all other
facts immaterial." (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

AFFIRMED.

SHORT, KONDUROS, and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.