Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2010-MO-019 - White v. City of Georgetown Police Department

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 Supreme Court

Carol McCants White, Appellant,

v.

City of Georgetown Police Department and Georgetown County School District, Respondents.


Appeal From Georgetown County
 Diane Schafer Goodstein, Circuit Court Judge


Memorandum Opinion No.  2010-MO-019
Heard June 25, 2010 – Filed August 9, 2010


AFFIRMED


Stephan Victor Futeral, and Thomas C. Nelson, both of Futeral & Nelson, of Mt. Pleasant, for Appellant.

Douglas Charles Baxter, of Richardson Plowden & Robinson, PA, of Myrtle Beach, Leigh Powers Boan and William W. Doar, Jr., both of McNair Law Firm, PA, of Georgetown, and Mason A. Summers, of Richardson Plowden & Robinson, PA, of Columbia, for Respondents.


PER CURIAM:  Appellant Carol McCants White appeals from the circuit court's grant of a directed verdict in favor of Respondents City of Georgetown Police Department and Georgetown County School District.  We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR and the following authorities:  Hinkle v. National Cas. Ins. Co., 354 S.C. 92, 96, 579 S.E.2d 616, 618 (2003) (citation omitted) (acknowledging that when considering a directed verdict motion, the trial court is required to view the evidence and the inferences that can be drawn from that evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party); Id. (noting that this Court will reverse the trial court's rulings on these motions only where there is no evidence to support the rulings or where the rulings are controlled by an error of law); Oliver v. S.C. Dep't of Highways and Public Transp., 309 S.C. 313, 317, 422 S.E.2d 128, 131 (1992) (stating ordinarily proximate cause is a question for the jury, but when the evidence is susceptible to only one inference, it becomes a matter of law for the court); Horton v. Greyhound Corp., 241 S.C. 430, 441-42, 128 S.E.2d 776, 782-83 (1962) (holding that in limited circumstances, a directed verdict on the issue of proximate cause is appropriate when an analysis of the plaintiff's claim reveals a lack of causation in fact or "but-for" connection between the defendant's alleged negligence and the plaintiff's injury). 

1. Georgetown County School District:  Larimore v. Carolina Power & Light, 340 S.C. 438, 448, 531 S.E.2d 535, 540 (Ct. App. 2000) (noting the obvious requirement that in order for a claim to be brought under a theory equating to premises liability, the accused must own the property in question).

2. City of Georgetown Police Department:  S.C. Code Ann. § 15-78-60(20) (2005) (stating a " governmental entity is not liable for a loss resulting from: . . . (20) an act or omission of a person other than an employee including but not limited to the criminal actions of third persons . . . .").

AFFIRMED.

TOAL, C.J., PLEICONES, BEATTY, KITTREDGE and HEARN, JJ., concur.