Vaughn v. City of Sumter

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

Dominic Vaughn, Appellant,

v.

City of Sumter, A Political Subdivision of the State of South Carolina, Sumter Merchants Association and Department of Transportation, Defendants,

Of Whom City of Sumter is the, Respondent.

Appeal From Sumter County

 R. Ferrell Cothran, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No.  2011-UP-045 

Submitted January 1, 2011 – Filed February 2, 2011

AFFIRMED

Dwight C. Moore, of Sumter, for Appellant.

A. Johnston Cox, Daniel R. Settana and Andrew F. Lindemann, all of
Columbia, for Respondent.

PER
CURIAM:  After suffering injuries in
a car wreck, Dominic Vaughn sued the City of Sumter (the City), Sumter
Merchants Association, and the Department of Transportation for negligence
under the South Carolina Torts Claims Act.  On appeal, Vaughn argues the trial
court erred in granting the City's summary judgment motion.   We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities:

1. As to whether Vaughn's amended complaint
against the City was timely: S.C. Code
Ann. § 15-78-110 (2005) ("[A]ny action brought pursuant to [the Act] is forever barred
unless an action is commenced within two years after the date the loss was or
should have been discovered . . . ." ); S.C. Code Ann. § 15-78-30(f)
(2005) ("'Loss' means bodily injury, disease, death, or damage to tangible
property . . . ."); Wiggins v. Edwards, 314 S.C. 126, 128, 442
S.E.2d 169, 170 (1994) ("'The important date under the discovery
rule is the date that a plaintiff discovers the injury, not the date of the
discovery of the identity of another alleged wrongdoer.'") (citation
omitted). 

2.  As to whether the
amended complaint related back to the original pleadings pursuant to Rule
15(c), SCRCP: Duncan
v. CRS Sirrine Engineers, Inc., 337 S.C. 537, 543-44, 524 S.E.2d 115, 119 (Ct. App.
1999) (finding an issue is unpreserved for our review when it is not raised to and
ruled upon by the trial court or no motion to alter or amend judgment on that
ground was filed).   

AFFIRMED.

HUFF and LOCKEMY, JJ., and GOOLSBY, A.J., concur.

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