Harris v. Fabian

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

Michael Harris
and Jennifer Harris, Appellants,

v.

Pamela Fabian, Respondent.

Appeal From Beaufort County

Marvin H. Dukes, III, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2011-UP-259

Submitted April 1, 2011 – Filed June 1,
2011   

AFFIRMED

Barry L. Johnson, of Okatie, for
Appellants.

Pamela Fabian, pro se, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Michael
and Jennifer Harris appeal the trial court's order, which affirmed the
magistrate court's order requiring the Harrises to pay $3,000 in damages to
Pamela Fabian.  On appeal, the Harrises argue the trial court improperly
calculated the damages associated with the injuries suffered by Fabian's dog.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following
authority: Sullivan v. City of
Anderson, 81 S.C. 478, 481, 62 S.E.
862, 863 (1908) ("The general rule is that the owner of a horse or other
animal, injured by the negligence of another, is entitled to recover the
difference between the market value of the animal immediately before the injury
and its market value immediately after the injury."); Id.  at
481-482, 62 S.E. at 863 ("But where,
as in this case, by the care and treatment of the owner, there has been a
partial restoration, the measure of damages is the difference in the market
value of the animal immediately before the injury and what would be its market
value at the same time in its condition of partial restoration, together with
the reasonable expenses of treatment and care.").

AFFIRMED.

WILLIAMS,
GEATHERS, and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.

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