Patterson v. Ortega

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

T. B. Patterson, Jr., Appellant,

v.

Justo Carmona Ortega, Respondent.

Appellate Case No. 2013-002677

Appeal From Chester County
J. Ernest Kinard, Jr., Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2015-UP-127
Submitted February 1, 2015 – Filed March 11, 2015

AFFIRMED

T. B. Patterson, Jr., of Lancaster, pro se.

George Verner Hanna, IV, and Michael Smoak
Traynham, both of Howser, Newman & Besley, L.L.C.,
of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following
authorities: A & I, Inc. v. Gore, 366 S.C. 233, 239, 621 S.E.2d 383, 386 (Ct. App.
2005) ("Where the circuit court has affirmed the magistrate court decision, this
court looks to whether the circuit court order is controlled by an error of law or is
unsupported by the facts." (internal quotation marks omitted)); Hadfield v.
Gilchrist, 343 S.C. 88, 94, 538 S.E.2d 268, 271 (Ct. App. 2000) (stating unless this
court finds an error of law, it will affirm the circuit court's holding if any facts
support its decision); Bailey v. Segars, 346 S.C. 359, 366, 550 S.E.2d 910, 913 (Ct.
App. 2001) (stating that in a cause of action for negligence, the plaintiff is required
to prove damages proximately resulting from the defendant's breach of duty);
Austin v. Specialty Transp. Servs., Inc., 358 S.C. 298, 312, 594 S.E.2d 867, 874
(Ct. App. 2004) ("The basic measure of actual damages is the amount needed to
compensate the plaintiff for the losses proximately caused by the defendant's
wrong so that the plaintiff will be in the same position he would have been in if
there had been no wrongful injury."); Minter v. GOCT, Inc., 322 S.C. 525, 528,
473 S.E.2d 67, 70 (Ct. App. 1996) ("[T]he general rule for recovery of
damages . . . requires that the evidence should be such as to enable the factfinder to
determine the amount of the damages with reasonable certainty.").

AFFIRMED.1

THOMAS, KONDUROS, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.

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