CourtListener 10153458•Carrigg v. Gilbert
Gesamter Gesetzestext
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
John Carrigg,
Sr., Respondent,
v.
Mable Gilbert, Appellant.
Appeal From Charleston County
R. Markley Dennis, Jr., Circuit Court
Judge
Unpublished Opinion No. 2010-UP-250
Submitted April 1, 2010 Filed April 26,
2010
AFFIRMED
Barrett R. Brewer, of Charleston, for
Appellant.
John Carrigg, Jr., of Irmo, for
Respondent.
PER CURIAM: The appeal arises from a personal injury case in which John Carrigg was awarded a jury verdict of $12,277.08. Mable
Gilbert appeals the award of costs for the video depositions of two of Carrigg's
witnesses. Specifically, Gilbert argues (1) for the purposes of recovering
these costs, court reporters and videographers are not
"commissioners" under section 15-37-40 of the South Carolina Code
(2005) and (2) section 15-37-40 does not allow the recovery of video deposition
costs because they are not expressly allowed by statute or by rule of court. We affirm[1] pursuant
to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities:
1. Concerning whether court reporters
are commissioners under section 15-37-40: S.C. Dep't of Transp. v. First
Carolina Corp. of S.C., 372 S.C. 295, 301, 641 S.E.2d 903, 907 ("'There are four basic requirements to preserving
issues at trial for appellate review.
The issue must have been (1) raised to and ruled upon by the trial court, (2)
raised by the appellant, (3) raised in a timely manner, and (4) raised to the
trial court with sufficient specificity.'" (quoting Jean Hoefer Toal et
al., Appellate Practice in South Carolina 57 (2d ed. 2002))).
2. Concerning Gilbert's remaining arguments: Id. (holding
in order for an issue to be preserved for appellate review, it must have been
raised to and ruled upon by the trial court).
AFFIRMED.
HUFF, THOMAS, and KONDUROS, JJ., concur.
[1] We decide this case without oral argument pursuant
to Rule 215, SCACR.
Setzen Sie Ihre Recherche in ChatGPT oder Claude fort
Verbinden Sie Omnilex, um den Rechtskorpus über Ihren KI-Assistenten zu durchsuchen.