Heil v. Hines

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

Mark and Elizabeth Heil, Appellants,

v.

Stewart and Christina Hines and Sam Imler d/b/a Sam's
Tree Service, Defendants,

Of whom Stewart and Christina Hines are the
Respondents.

Appellate Case No. 2015-001988

Appeal From Beaufort County
Perry M. Buckner, III, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2016-UP-470
Submitted October 1, 2016 – Filed November 9, 2016

AFFIRMED

Glynn Lindsey Capell and Charles Whaley Thomson,
both of The Capell Law Firm, LLC, of Hilton Head
Island, for Appellants.

Brian D. McDaniel, of Law Office Of Brian McDaniel,
LLC, of Beaufort, for Respondents.
PER CURIAM: Mark and Elizabeth Heil (collectively, Appellants) appeal the
circuit court's order granting summary judgment in favor of Stewart and Christina
Hines (collectively, Respondents), arguing the circuit court erred by finding no
evidence existed Respondents had breached a duty to Appellants on their
negligence cause of action. Appellants contend the circuit court overlooked
evidence showing Respondents failed to inspect and maintain the tree, and
Respondents negligently hired Sam's Tree Service. We affirm.

We find Appellants produced no evidence from which an inference could be made
that Respondents breached their duty of care. See Wachovia Bank, N.A. v. Coffey,
404 S.C. 421, 425, 746 S.E.2d 35, 37 (2013) ("An appellate court reviews the
granting of summary judgment under the same standard applied by the trial court
under Rule 56, SCRCP." (quoting Quail Hill, LLC v. Cty. of Richland, 387 S.C.
223, 235, 692 S.E.2d 499, 505 (2010))); Rule 56(c), SCRCP (stating the circuit
court shall grant summary judgment if "there is no genuine issue as to any material
fact and . . . the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law"); Doe ex
rel. Doe v. Batson, 345 S.C. 316, 322, 548 S.E.2d 854, 857 (2001) (stating that in
order to establish a cause of action for negligence, a party must "allege facts which
demonstrate the concurrence of three elements: (1) a duty of care owed by the
defendant; (2) a breach of that duty by negligent act or omission; and (3) damage
proximately caused by the breach"). Here, the subject tree was a live, healthy tree
and Appellants presented no evidence that Respondents could have observed, by
reasonable inspection, the damage possibly caused by the tree limb. Cf. Israel v.
Carolina Bar-B-Que, Inc., 292 S.C. 282, 288-89, 356 S.E.2d 123, 127 (Ct. App.
1987) (holding liable the owner of the property the tree grew on because there was
evidence the limb was partially decayed and could have been observed by
reasonable inspection by the owner). Furthermore, when Respondents were
notified the tree needed to be trimmed because it was encroaching on Appellants'
roof, Respondents hired Sam's Tree Service and the work was completed within a
month of notice; Appellants did not allege the delay between notice and action
caused the damage. Additionally, Appellants do not explain how the fact that
Sam's Tree Service used an undocumented worker as its tree climber and the
comparatively low fee Sam's Tree Service charged equate to a breach of
Respondents' duty. Moreover, Appellants did not present evidence Sam's Tree
Service's work was in some way inferior, faulty, or that another tree service
company would have known or communicated that a single dented shingle was
cause for structural concern—if the dented shingle was the cause of the damage.
Finally, Appellants provide no support for their contention Respondents should
have supervised the work Sam's Tree Service undertook. Accordingly, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.1

HUFF and SHORT, JJ., and MOORE, A.J., concur.

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