Doe v. Rhinehart

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

Jane Doe, as guardian for John Doe, Appellant,

v.

Doni Rhinehart, Respondent.

Appellate Case No. 2013-000807

Appeal From Spartanburg County
J. Derham Cole, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2015-UP-060
Submitted December 1, 2014 – Filed February 4, 2015

AFFIRMED

Gregg E. Meyers, of Jeff Anderson & Associates, P.A.,
of St. Paul, MN, for Appellant.

James P. Walsh and Amy Miller Snyder, both of
Clarkson Walsh Terrell & Coulter, P.A., of Greenville,
for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Jane Doe, as guardian for John Doe, appeals an order of the
circuit court granting summary judgment to Doni Rhinehart. Jane Doe argues the
circuit court erred by (1) viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the
movant, Rhinehart, rather than to the nonmoving party, Jane Doe; (2) not
considering the discovery issues set forth in her opposing affidavit; and (3) not
considering her proposed amended complaint. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b),
SCACR, and the following authorities:

1. As to whether the circuit court erred by viewing the evidence in the light most
favorable to Rhinehart rather than Jane Doe: Stevens & Wilkinson of S.C., Inc. v.
City of Columbia, 409 S.C. 568, 576, 762 S.E.2d 696, 700 (2014) (stating that
when reviewing a grant of summary judgment, this court applies the same standard
applied by the circuit court pursuant to Rule 56(c), SCRCP); Town of Hollywood v.
Floyd, 403 S.C. 466, 477, 744 S.E.2d 161, 166 (2013) ("Summary judgment is
proper if, viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party,
there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to a
judgment as a matter of law."); Bishop v. S.C. Dep't of Mental Health, 331 S.C. 79,
86, 502 S.E.2d 78, 81 (1998) ("An essential element in a cause of action for
negligence is the existence of a legal duty of care owed by the defendant to the
plaintiff. Without a duty, there is no actionable negligence."); Hendricks v.
Clemson Univ., 353 S.C. 449, 456, 578 S.E.2d 711, 714 (2003) ("Whether the law
recognizes a particular duty is an issue of law to be decided by the [c]ourt."); Doe
ex rel. Doe v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 393 S.C. 240, 246, 711 S.E.2d 908, 911
(2011) ("Under South Carolina law, there is no general duty to control the conduct
of another or to warn a third person or potential victim of danger." (internal
quotation marks and citation omitted)); id. at 247, 711 S.E.2d at 912 ("[I]f no duty
has been established, evidence as to the standard of care is irrelevant. Only when
there is a duty would a standard of care need to be established.").

2. As to whether the circuit court erred by not considering the discovery issues set
forth in Jane Doe's opposing affidavit: Mathis v. Brown & Brown of S.C., Inc., 389
S.C. 299, 311, 698 S.E.2d 773, 779 (2010) (holding that for an issue to be properly
preserved for appeal, it must have been both raised to and ruled on by the circuit
court, and where the circuit court's order did not address the appellant's argument
and the appellant did not bring the absence of this issue to the circuit court's
attention in a motion to alter or amend, the issue was not preserved); I'On, L.L.C. v.
Town of Mt. Pleasant, 338 S.C. 406, 422, 526 S.E.2d 716, 724 (2000) ("If the
losing party has raised an issue in the lower court, but the court fails to rule upon it,
the party must file a motion to alter or amend the judgment in order to preserve the
issue for appellate review.").
3. As to whether the circuit court erred by not considering Jane Doe's proposed
amended complaint: Mathis, 389 S.C. at 311, 698 S.E.2d at 779 (holding that for
an issue to be properly preserved for appeal, it must have been both raised to and
ruled on by the circuit court, and where the circuit court's order did not address the
appellant's argument and the appellant did not bring the absence of this issue to the
circuit court's attention in a motion to alter or amend, the issue was not preserved).

AFFIRMED.1

WILLIAMS, GEATHERS, and McDONALD, JJ., concur.

1
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.